Armory Sponsor
Posted: 3/4/2015 9:51:08 PM EDT
|
I understand that 0.7mW is the FDA-prescribed "eye-safe" consumer-spec for IR lasers but, with few exceptions, it seems like every manufacturer feels like they HAVE to build their lasers to that maximum legal limit -- almost like using LESS power puts them at a marketing disadvantage -- i.e. "Well, the laser on XYZ unit is "only" 0.3mW. Ours is more than TWICE as powerful as theirs!"
Unless it's just me, I find 0.7mW too powerful for most applications with modern, high-specification NODs. The bloom on every surface I've pointed it at is severe, making an accompanying illuminator almost mandatory. I know a couple have a "low-power" setting that will cut that to a far more usable 0.2mW (like the Atilla), which seems to be as bright as I can stand it. I guess this is a complaint thread in search of a hearing ear that can introduce, at the very least, a user-selectable LOW power output of 0.1mW or 0.2mW in future products. **** And if IR Defense sees this -- PLEASE OH PLEASE integrate an IR laser into your next generation IR Patrol unit, preferably with a larger / faster objective (*not* greater magnification, unless you go with interchangeable lenses!!!) **** |
|
That's why we levied LDI to incorporate the hi/lo feature of the early I2 units after the release. Same reason we levied the LDI LAS TAC at .2mW. Either way, this is another reason to use those neutral dense filters.
Please also understand when the first .7mW units were first released the manufactures had no 1st hand experience with these low power systems and it was all about squeezing the highest rating possible. They thought this was what the market wanted. This topic has been covered many times so please also refrain the all mighty ".7mW lasers have damaged hundreds of tubes." 
|
|
Quoted:
I understand that 0.7mW is the FDA-prescribed "eye-safe" consumer-spec for IR lasers but, with few exceptions, it seems like every manufacturer feels like they HAVE to build their lasers to that maximum legal limit -- almost like using LESS power puts them at a marketing disadvantage -- i.e. "Well, the laser on XYZ unit is "only" 0.3mW. Ours is more than TWICE as powerful as theirs!" Unless it's just me, I find 0.7mW too powerful for most applications with modern, high-specification NODs. The bloom on every surface I've pointed it at is severe, making an accompanying illuminator almost mandatory. I know a couple have a "low-power" setting that will cut that to a far more usable 0.2mW (like the Atilla), which seems to be as bright as I can stand it. I guess this is a complaint thread in search of a hearing ear that can introduce, at the very least, a user-selectable LOW power output of 0.1mW or 0.2mW in future products. **** And if IR Defense sees this -- PLEASE OH PLEASE integrate an IR laser into your next generation IR Patrol unit, preferably with a larger / faster objective (*not* greater magnification, unless you go with interchangeable lenses!!!) **** This is precisely why the ATILLA-200 and class 1 VITAL-2 devices are so spectacular. You can dial a VITAL-2 down to where it is basically undetectable. This comes in really handy in extremely low ambient light situations when you're shooting at small targets. Such great lasers, I have no idea why the variable power thing hasn't been introduced into newer stuff. The battery life on them is excellent too. |
|
Quoted:
And if IR Defense sees this -- PLEASE OH PLEASE integrate an IR laser into your next generation IR Patrol unit, preferably with a larger / faster objective (*not* greater magnification, unless you go with interchangeable lenses!!!) Why you can't see it with a Thermal Unit, at least I cannot see IR lasers with mine. |
|
Quoted:
Why you can't see it with a Thermal Unit, at least I cannot see IR lasers with mine. Quoted:
Quoted:
And if IR Defense sees this -- PLEASE OH PLEASE integrate an IR laser into your next generation IR Patrol unit, preferably with a larger / faster objective (*not* greater magnification, unless you go with interchangeable lenses!!!) Why you can't see it with a Thermal Unit, at least I cannot see IR lasers with mine. He's talking about using the thermal as a pointer so others with you using I2 devices may see what you're looking at. As for the IR Patrol incorporating a laser, that is the main reason for the integrated pic rail. 
|
|
I'm with you, Horta. I filter my 0.7 mw lasers by 80% or more ordinarily.
I have a CT IR on a silenced 22 rifle and when I can figure out how to sensibly filter THAT, I will. Because inside of 50 yards, where that gun is worth shooting, 0.1 mw is too dang bright. |
|
Quoted:
That's why we levied LDI to incorporate the hi/lo feature of the early I2 units after the release. Same reason we levied the LDI LAS TAC at .2mW. Either way, this is another reason to use those neutral dense filters. Please also understand when the first .7mW units were first released the manufactures had no 1st hand experience with these low power systems and it was all about squeezing the highest rating possible. They thought this was what the market wanted. This topic has been covered many times so please also refrain the all mighty ".7mW lasers have damaged hundreds of tubes." I'm glad you're a voice of reason in a sea of "MORE POWER!" marketing. I can understand the .MIL manufacturers, especially early-on (although Nivisys seemed to figure it out early), and I'll avoid the "tube-destroying frickin' layzur beam" arguments. 
|
|
Quoted: Couldn't just install a neutral density filter? Or some sort of filter in front to bring the intensity down? G. |
|
Quoted:
I'm glad you're a voice of reason in a sea of "MORE POWER!" marketing. I can understand the .MIL manufacturers, especially early-on (although Nivisys seemed to figure it out early), and I'll avoid the "tube-destroying frickin' layzur beam" arguments. Quoted:
Quoted:
That's why we levied LDI to incorporate the hi/lo feature of the early I2 units after the release. Same reason we levied the LDI LAS TAC at .2mW. Either way, this is another reason to use those neutral dense filters. Please also understand when the first .7mW units were first released the manufactures had no 1st hand experience with these low power systems and it was all about squeezing the highest rating possible. They thought this was what the market wanted. This topic has been covered many times so please also refrain the all mighty ".7mW lasers have damaged hundreds of tubes." I'm glad you're a voice of reason in a sea of "MORE POWER!" marketing. I can understand the .MIL manufacturers, especially early-on (although Nivisys seemed to figure it out early), and I'll avoid the "tube-destroying frickin' layzur beam" arguments. FYI "Nivisys" was not the original designer of the Atilla and its variable powered goodness. The credit goes to Night Vision Equipment Company. |
|
Quoted:
FYI "Nivisys" was not the original designer of the Atilla and its variable powered goodness. The credit goes to Night Vision Equipment Company. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's why we levied LDI to incorporate the hi/lo feature of the early I2 units after the release. Same reason we levied the LDI LAS TAC at .2mW. Either way, this is another reason to use those neutral dense filters. Please also understand when the first .7mW units were first released the manufactures had no 1st hand experience with these low power systems and it was all about squeezing the highest rating possible. They thought this was what the market wanted. This topic has been covered many times so please also refrain the all mighty ".7mW lasers have damaged hundreds of tubes." I'm glad you're a voice of reason in a sea of "MORE POWER!" marketing. I can understand the .MIL manufacturers, especially early-on (although Nivisys seemed to figure it out early), and I'll avoid the "tube-destroying frickin' layzur beam" arguments. FYI "Nivisys" was not the original designer of the Atilla and its variable powered goodness. The credit goes to Night Vision Equipment Company. Actually ITT to begin with then NVEC who purchased the rights. Vic |
|
Quoted:
I'm with you, Horta. I filter my 0.7 mw lasers by 80% or more ordinarily. I have a CT IR on a silenced 22 rifle and when I can figure out how to sensibly filter THAT, I will. Because inside of 50 yards, where that gun is worth shooting, 0.1 mw is too dang bright. I bought a Steiner/ LDI version 1 ND filter for DBAL-I2 or EOLAD and removed the filter material and epoxied it over the front lens of the CT Railmaster IR. Works like a freaking charm. I'd estimate it cuts the output down to about 1/8 or 1/10th of original. For a pistol, it works great. Also, Ident will take it apart and install it inside the housing for about $35. |
|
Quoted:
That's why we levied LDI to incorporate the hi/lo feature of the early I2 units after the release. Same reason we levied the LDI LAS TAC at .2mW. Either way, this is another reason to use those neutral dense filters. Please also understand when the first .7mW units were first released the manufactures had no 1st hand experience with these low power systems and it was all about squeezing the highest rating possible. They thought this was what the market wanted. This topic has been covered many times so please also refrain the all mighty ".7mW lasers have damaged hundreds of tubes." .7 mw lasers destroying thousands of tubes is what I remember !!  Could have been hundreds, who knows ! LMAO ! As a guy who may or may not (for you agent WU) have used milspec high powered IR lasers. I can say the high power is nice for IR illumination but IR diodes have really breached the gap here. Even on low it is can be overpowering at close ranges. I like the power and cool factor but in truth it is not needed in most situations.
My shots at night are always under 100M. I know that is not always the case but with my eyes 100M is my ethical limit to insure a clean kill. |
|
Quoted:
Actually ITT to begin with then NVEC who purchased the rights. Vic Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's why we levied LDI to incorporate the hi/lo feature of the early I2 units after the release. Same reason we levied the LDI LAS TAC at .2mW. Either way, this is another reason to use those neutral dense filters. Please also understand when the first .7mW units were first released the manufactures had no 1st hand experience with these low power systems and it was all about squeezing the highest rating possible. They thought this was what the market wanted. This topic has been covered many times so please also refrain the all mighty ".7mW lasers have damaged hundreds of tubes." I'm glad you're a voice of reason in a sea of "MORE POWER!" marketing. I can understand the .MIL manufacturers, especially early-on (although Nivisys seemed to figure it out early), and I'll avoid the "tube-destroying frickin' layzur beam" arguments. FYI "Nivisys" was not the original designer of the Atilla and its variable powered goodness. The credit goes to Night Vision Equipment Company. Actually ITT to begin with then NVEC who purchased the rights. Vic Damn you must be really old to have known that.
|
|
Quoted: .7 mw lasers destroying thousands of tubes is what I remember !! Could have been hundreds, who knows ! LMAO ! As a guy who may or may not (for you agent WU) have used milspec high powered IR lasers. I can say the high power is nice for IR illumination but IR diodes have really breached the gap here. Even on low it is can be overpowering at close ranges. I like the power and cool factor but in truth it is not needed in most situations.My shots at night are always under 100M. I know that is not always the case but with my eyes 100M is my ethical limit to insure a clean kill. Quoted: Quoted: That's why we levied LDI to incorporate the hi/lo feature of the early I2 units after the release. Same reason we levied the LDI LAS TAC at .2mW. Either way, this is another reason to use those neutral dense filters. Please also understand when the first .7mW units were first released the manufactures had no 1st hand experience with these low power systems and it was all about squeezing the highest rating possible. They thought this was what the market wanted. This topic has been covered many times so please also refrain the all mighty ".7mW lasers have damaged hundreds of tubes." .7 mw lasers destroying thousands of tubes is what I remember !! Could have been hundreds, who knows ! LMAO ! As a guy who may or may not (for you agent WU) have used milspec high powered IR lasers. I can say the high power is nice for IR illumination but IR diodes have really breached the gap here. Even on low it is can be overpowering at close ranges. I like the power and cool factor but in truth it is not needed in most situations.My shots at night are always under 100M. I know that is not always the case but with my eyes 100M is my ethical limit to insure a clean kill. MILLIONS  |
|
Quoted:
Damn you must be really old to have known that. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's why we levied LDI to incorporate the hi/lo feature of the early I2 units after the release. Same reason we levied the LDI LAS TAC at .2mW. Either way, this is another reason to use those neutral dense filters. Please also understand when the first .7mW units were first released the manufactures had no 1st hand experience with these low power systems and it was all about squeezing the highest rating possible. They thought this was what the market wanted. This topic has been covered many times so please also refrain the all mighty ".7mW lasers have damaged hundreds of tubes." I'm glad you're a voice of reason in a sea of "MORE POWER!" marketing. I can understand the .MIL manufacturers, especially early-on (although Nivisys seemed to figure it out early), and I'll avoid the "tube-destroying frickin' layzur beam" arguments. FYI "Nivisys" was not the original designer of the Atilla and its variable powered goodness. The credit goes to Night Vision Equipment Company. Actually ITT to begin with then NVEC who purchased the rights. Vic Damn you must be really old to have known that. Damn CTM1 you always know how to turn the knife! ....Actually when I was Agent Wu I did a bunch of NV work and used to purchase a bunch of heap from them all. 
|
|
Unless it's just me, I find 0.7mW too powerful for most applications with modern, high-specification NODs. The bloom on every surface I've pointed it at is severe, making an accompanying illuminator almost mandatory. I know a couple have a "low-power" setting that will cut that to a far more usable 0.2mW (like the Atilla), which seems to be as bright as I can stand it. I couldn't agree more! 0.7 is still to bright especially on a really dark night. On my close quarters combat. I can't tell the difference from ir to vis when lighting up a hog. Have to raise laser above and back down several times to make sure I'm in a kill zone. |
|
Quoted:
This is why I bought (pre-ordered) 2 Steiner DBAL-A3s instead of buying 2 ATIPIALs. The ATPIAL C has a built in filter that both blinds the vis laser against ADs and reduces the bloom of the IR laser to around 0.1mW levels. Rotate the filter out of the way and you get the 0.7mW IR or Vis laser. Pretty well thought out. Pup has a great picture of the difference just above. It also has the advantage of actually being available right now. |
|
Quoted:
The ATPIAL C has a built in filter that both blinds the vis laser against ADs and reduces the bloom of the IR laser to around 0.1mW levels. Rotate the filter out of the way and you get the 0.7mW IR or Vis laser. Pretty well thought out. Pup has a great picture of the difference just above. It also has the advantage of actually being available right now. Quoted:
Quoted:
This is why I bought (pre-ordered) 2 Steiner DBAL-A3s instead of buying 2 ATIPIALs. The ATPIAL C has a built in filter that both blinds the vis laser against ADs and reduces the bloom of the IR laser to around 0.1mW levels. Rotate the filter out of the way and you get the 0.7mW IR or Vis laser. Pretty well thought out. Pup has a great picture of the difference just above. It also has the advantage of actually being available right now. Personally, I'd prefer the hi/lo be integrated into the switch. I've seen too many broken covers. I'm looking at the I2 single spectrum. looks like the best balance of function and price. I'd love an ATPIALC or A3, but I'm not sure i can justify 500+ for a visible laser. |
|
Quoted: And if IR Defense sees this -- PLEASE OH PLEASE integrate an IR laser into your next generation IR Patrol unit, Why? I actually prefer to use my weapon mounted IR laser to designate with, the controls are more natural than using one on the unit. If you are using it handheld then just throw something on the built in picitanny rail on the IR patrol. |
|
Quoted:
Why? I actually prefer to use my weapon mounted IR laser to designate with, the controls are more natural than using one on the unit. If you are using it handheld then just throw something on the built in picitanny rail on the IR patrol. Quoted:
Quoted:
And if IR Defense sees this -- PLEASE OH PLEASE integrate an IR laser into your next generation IR Patrol unit, Why? I actually prefer to use my weapon mounted IR laser to designate with, the controls are more natural than using one on the unit. If you are using it handheld then just throw something on the built in picitanny rail on the IR patrol. Indeed, I mentioned this on PG.1. Here is a few pics what RustedAce is referring to. 
These are starting to ship in a few weeks. P&R Tactical and TNVC are the first distributors shipping these to all including other dealers. Vic |
|
Vic,
How well does the patrol work when weapon mounted in front of an optic? Can it function like a clip on in front of a magnified optic? Last question, how does it handle recoil? Could it survive 458 Socom? Quoted:
Indeed, I mentioned this on PG.1. Here is a few pics what RustedAce is referring to. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Clutch99/IRP-5_zps581fe821.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Clutch99/IRP-4_zpsab7e3052.jpg These are starting to ship in a few weeks. P&R Tactical and TNVC are the first distributors shipping these to all including other dealers. Vic Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And if IR Defense sees this -- PLEASE OH PLEASE integrate an IR laser into your next generation IR Patrol unit, Why? I actually prefer to use my weapon mounted IR laser to designate with, the controls are more natural than using one on the unit. If you are using it handheld then just throw something on the built in picitanny rail on the IR patrol. Indeed, I mentioned this on PG.1. Here is a few pics what RustedAce is referring to. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Clutch99/IRP-5_zps581fe821.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Clutch99/IRP-4_zpsab7e3052.jpg These are starting to ship in a few weeks. P&R Tactical and TNVC are the first distributors shipping these to all including other dealers. Vic |
Armory Sponsor