Okay, so after several different attempts to "get started" on a thorough review of the AB Night Vision MOD-3 Modular Night Vision Device, I think I've finally decided to simply settle in, and do this as a multi-part, multi-post deal.  

DISCLAIMER:

I am not, nor have I ever been employed by, or otherwise affiliated with either AB Night Vision, or Night Long Industries, LLC. in any capacity other than that of a customer.  All views and opinions expressed in these posts are my own, and may not necessarily reflect those of either AB Night Vision, or Night Long Industries, LLC.

I will try to make this review as thorough as possible because I know that for a lot of folks, NV is a big investment and a lot of money, and I'd like to be able to help provide folks for whom any NV related purchase is a "big" purchase, to make an informed decision with as much of the information they need as possible.  I have been assisted in my own privately owned NV experiences by a great many members of this forum who have been generous in their time and expertise, and sometimes even going so far as to loan me their own, personal equipment to try out - this is my attempt to "pay back" the community to the best of my abilities.  

Moreover, I know that ARFCOM is typically in large part about "pron," I am regrettably not anything resembling a professional photographer, so I apologize in advance for the quality of the photographs - I will do my best to be representative of what I am depicting and describing, however, I don't think any of these pictures are going to be anyone's wallpaper anytime soon.  

Some general photographs, just to start and wet your whistles, before I get into the "hot and heavy" review, with accompanying photographs, since we all know that ARF is "pron" centric anyways.  

BACKGROUND:

While I could (and almost did ) go into a much longer and much more extensive explanation of my background and what I was looking for, I decided to try and keep things as basic as possible.

Some of you may be aware that for about the past year, I've been trying to put together a dual tube, binocular NVG system that retained the ability to be split into two separate monoculars if need be.  The reason for this is simple -- I do not personally know anyone else that owns night vision - if I want to take someone with me, I had better be providing the NODs.  

Rather than going into a long winded discussion about the benefits and shortfalls of binoculars versus monoculars for various different uses - suffice to say, I had already concluded that I "needed" a set of binoculars, but I did not want to give up the option of equipping a confederate with a monocular.  I examined various options, including trying to trade my better PVS-14 for a "low grade" AVS-6 unit, etc. but none of them really panned out without requiring at least another $2,000 investment in a lump sum, which was beyond my abilities.

Thus, the only real solution I was left with was to bridge my two PVS-14s that I had traded for - many may remember my various analyses  of bridge adapters:

ARCHIVED THREAD: Can we talk about PVS-14 Dual Bridge Mounts?

In my quest for binocular NVGs, I had tried zip ties and rubber bands:




The ever-popular IC/MOD Armory PVS-14 Bridge:




Eventually, by late November of last year (2014), I believed that I had finally figured out my "ideal" modular binocular/monocular setup, using the N-Vision standard mount, an extremely simple and lightweight "no frills" bridge mount:




ARCHIVED THREAD: Not PVS-15s, and DEFINITELY not TheHorta... Dual PVS-14s + N-Vision Moun


Of course, such is life that my feeling of self-satisfaction at having finally put together what I thought was a damned good solution given the limitations I was faced with was extremely short lived.  

Not long after I posted the last thread there, declaring:



(Veteran ARFCOMers will know what a dangerous phrase that is to utter, but utter it I did.  )

...Ryan Hoover, from Night Long Industries, and a member and frequent poster here (rbhoover) sent me a PM about a new modular, binocular NVG system that he and Adam Barker of AB Night Vision had been working on, and were about to publicly announce that he thought that I might be interested in.  Ryan and I had done business and spoken in the past (I got my first PVS-14 from him in a private transaction), and shared mutual interests in military rifles and "clone" threads as well as NV, and he and I had discussed many times what the best way for me to go to get binocular NVGs would be - through which, presumably and impressively managed to keep his mouth shut about this project until the day before it was publicly announced.  

See, back in August of last year, well respected member cj7hawk posed a fairly simple question –



This was my response –



http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_18/430251__ARCHIVED_THREAD____Optical__Aesthetic_and_Ergonomic_properties_of_Night_Vision_Monoculars___August_Questions_.html&page=1#i4121624

Typically speaking, I am usually not an “early adopter,” I’m naturally conservative when it comes to equipment choices – largely because I’m so hard on my equipment, I tend to break things – and therefore I prefer to do a lot research before purchasing/acquiring, and I don’t usually acquire equipment to be a beta tester, I tend to want long-proven, fully mature products, and I’m more than happy to be a couple “seasons” behind the latest “tactical fashions” as long as the gear is good – not to mention the fact that when a new fashion comes, a certain number of people always dump the old one for way cheaper than it retailed for.  

However, with only minor differences - the MOD-3 appeared to essentially be exactly what it was that I had been looking for, and exactly what I had already said that would be worth "immediately upgrading" my existing NVGs, so, naturally, I had to have 'em.  

THE CONVERSION:

The biggest problem that I faced in getting my grubby little mitts on the MOD-3s were that the first systems were designed for MX-10160-style, non-manual gain control tubes, while I was running PVS-14s, using MX-11769, manual gain tubes.  

After some discussion with Ryan as to my options, I settled on a rather unorthodox solution - to have my MX-11769s converted to MX-10160-style tubes by having the pigtails removed and a resistor soldered across the contacts to set the gain, but still retaining the option to return to manual gain units in the future, as MX-11769 manual gain optical pods are already in the works.  Though this does not appear to be common solution, and my specific knowledge of the technical workings of image intensifier tubes and electronics in general does not extend far enough to talk much about it or know how difficult or not difficult this type of conversion is - I will say that I elected to do so in part because of my confidence in Ryan, and his ability to do the work, or, failing that, take care of me if something went awry.  

Either way, shortly before the New Year, Ryan told me that he'd received the kits from AB Night Vision, and was ready to do the build.  I boxed up my PVS-14s, and sent them UPS Ground, off to Iowa to Night Long Industries, and Ryan's tender ministrations.  

What I received back (along with my PVS-14 housings, and all the parts not used for the conversion) were:

(please forgive the dog hair on the carpet - it was either vacuum or take pictures.  )









The split rings and 550 cord lanyard were obviously added by me later on (more on these later)





The two optical pods:








The "bino bridge":










The monocular adapters:

Needless to say, more to come, I will updating this review piece by piece - feel free to give me your comments in the meantime.

Also, if there is something that you want to know about or see pictures of, please post it as well, and I will try to answer it to the best of my knowledge and as far as I am able.  

~Augee

very nice start, can't wait to see the rest. I would really like to see the monos mounted on whatever types of arms you may have.

Tag to read later.  I just dropped my pvs's-14s off to Hoover yesterday to have him build up mod-3 for me.

I am so torn on buying one of these. Nobody i know owns nvg, so like you, i'm always supplying it. However, i own an anvis 6 and a pvs-14, so i'm not sure if it is a worthwhile upgrade for me.

How much was the housing with two pods minus the optics? Did he charge for assembly?

Very cool, so those things on the back of the bridge, they obviously lock the pods to the bridge, do they also act as tensioner's? I've always wondered how sturdy the pods would be on the bridge. Seems the design might lend itself to more wobble than a system like the Sentinels, especially over time, but if those keep tension, than I guess that would take care of it. Is the dovetail replaceable with an ANVIS mount if you wanted to use a battery pack? How does having the switch on the right side feel? I always wondered why it wasn't on the left, but meh. Is there an IR source? Switch activated?

Awesome goggs,  the more I see of them, the more I'm swayed to go with the 11769 version when it gets released, depending on price. Anyone...uh... anyone want to chime in on a possible release date for the dual gain version? Very cool setup, I really hope there is further development of them in the future.

Augee,

Really appreciate your time in reviewing these. I have a question,

If you were running Monos would you single pod both or leave one pod in the dual mount?

Chosos, it's $1349 shipped back to you.  You provide the image tubes and the optics.  The $1349 price includes assembly, purging, collimating, and shipping back to you.  Mine are out for delivery on the big brown truck and I'm stuck here at work for another 3 hours

Lets change that man, I live 20 miles away from you

G.

Thanks augee.

Can anyone send me the link for the organ exchange in the EE?

Cool.

When are the manual gain version coming out?

is this what you're looking for http://nightlongind.com/products.html

 
 

I guess my next question is do I want to chop my tnvpvs14 apart.....

Personally, if it's still under warranty then I wouldn't.

On another note, I took my new MOD-3 out last night and I have to say WOW, walking around with dual tubes is the ONLY way to do it.  I always found that walking around with a PVS-14 on one eye and the other eye unaided wasn't very easy, at least for me it isn't, as my brain gets 2 different visual inputs and it just doesn't like that.  With the MOD-3 it felt much more natural to walk around outside in the dark and not feel that I have to keep reaching out for things like I would do with the hand on the side that didn't have the PVS-14 when using a single tube.  I also have to say that the Photonis XX1940 tubes that are in my MOD-3 give me close to 85 to 90% of the performance of MX11769 or MX10160 tubes for around half the price of those tubes.  I am now a true convert to dual tubes, they are much easier to use when walking around.

Got kind of side tracked the last couple of days - but will be back to answer some questions, and continue the review!  

Some teasers:
















~Augee

Very nice, thanks Augee! One question I had and I think has been asked already, can you use a single pod on the bridge or does it need both? I'm in the same boat as you, no one around has NV so if we're going to play that means I'm sharing.
Also interested in what you have to say about mounts and how well they play with the Mod3. Your input on the AKA2 will be of particular interest to me.

Are your two tubes pretty closely matched? I was curious how your "budget" setup would turn out.

Yeah, itchytrigger did a great job on picking 2 of the XX1940 tubes he had that are very close together.  When looking up at the stars they tend to have 'tails' (mostly the really bright ones) when you're panning around but other than that these Photonis tubes are really performing well.  I'm having no problem walking around in what appears to the unaided eye as pitch black with no visible light anywhere and not have it cause me any apprehension or feeling like I need to constantly reach out with the hand on the side that doesn't have the NVM when using a single PVS-14.

I also have to say the build quality of the MOD-3 is extremely high.  The optical pods lock in to the bino bridge and the monocular power supplies tightly and have no movement either fore or aft, side to side, or up and down.  The dovetail mount on the bino bridge locks right in to my Rhino mount and after adding the AB Nightvision Vertical Slide Adapter to it has made a world of difference in being able to get the MOD-3 exactly where I want it so it's comfortable to use and I'm not feeling like I have to constantly fiddle with it.  And a great big endorsement for Ryan and Nightlong Ind. for the great customer service during the process to get my MOD-3's built.  Ryan answered all of my questions, even when he was at the SHOT show.  I can't say enough good things about him and his company, he is one upstanding guy that I will definitely go to first on my next night vision purchase.  He even threw in some ocular eyepiece adapters for no charge cause he 'had a couple laying around'.  You can't go wrong when dealing with Ryan, he is one outstanding businessman and ARFCOM member.

Pricing and assembly has been covered, so I won't belabor that, all I can say is that my experience with having Ryan build mine has been outstandingly positive!  

I guess if you got the MOD-3, you could always bring two people with you if you wanted, not just one.  

I actually am really jealous of folks in your situation that have a set of ANVIS and a PVS-14, and I'd love, eventually, to at least pick up an AN/AVS-6 for the light weight and balance with the external battery pack, and because they're just so damn sexy!  

That being said, having never "beaten up" an ANVIS, my understanding is that the MOD-3s are another "ground hardened" permutation of the ANVIS like the AN/PVS-23 and Sentinels, just with the modular functionality that those systems lack.  It's a machined Delrin and aluminum housing, and supposedly there is an ANVIS optic version coming, as well as the dual manual gain optical pods that have already been previewed.  

FWIW, I'd still love to get a set of AVS-6s, but I'd still want them to supplement a MOD-3, because while I may have been unjustly influenced by reports of the delicacy of the ANVIS, having, as I said, never used them "hard," I am pretty confident in the overall solidity and durability of the MOD-3, though I will, of course couch that by saying I've only had them a little over a month, and the tougher "beat downs" are still to come.  If it helps in this aspect - I plan to take and use my personal MOD-3s in military training environments to see how they hold up - if I had paid my own money for a set of ANVIS, I probably wouldn't risk it.  



I've run them as monoculars using the monocular adapters, and probably will/would continue to do so.  As you can see from the photographs of the bridge without the optical pods, there are contacts inside the shoe for the optical pod.  Per AB Night Vision's specs, the MOD-3 system is supposed to be rated for 66 feet (I have not, and will not be testing this intentionally ) - which I'm assuming is assembled.  I'm sure that the exposed contacts both on the optical pod and shoe are protected in some way against water and moisture, but I have not gotten a full answer on exactly on to what extent.  

The other question(s) I've asked that am still waiting to hear back on is what happens when you remove an optical pod with the binocular bridge still powered on, and what happens when you re-install one when it's still powered on, and what happens if you throw moisture into the mix of that situation, or even if the bridge is powered down, but the contacts on either the optical pod, bridge, or both, are wet, and you go to power it on?  For obvious reasons, I haven't tested this myself, but I'd be curious to know what would happen in these situations.  

Being in SC, with high ambient humidity and often unexpected showers, I'm pretty reluctant to run the binocular bridge with only one optical pod as a matter of habit, though I would have no problem doing it short term, once in a while - or maybe even "on the fly" while the whole unit was stuck to my face for a short duration, for example, if I suddenly found myself in an area of high ambient light after having been in the dark, but I don't particularly imagine "planning" from the outset to run just the binocular bridge with just one optical pod.  I'll probably bring it up again, but one of the things that I've been trying to convince Ryan and Adam is a good idea is to have a "Gen. II" monocular adapter with similar functionality to the AN/PVS-18, with a built in mounting interface, thereby negating the need for something like the Norotos DDA or Wilcox I-Arm.  



I would agree that I probably wouldn't bother chopping up a warrantied TNVC unit - particularly since the current iteration can only use MX-10160 tubes without modification.  Both of my tubes/PVS-14s were used units from the EE from members here, so I didn't have much problem getting them taken apart and assuming at least a little bit of risk, though I was confident that Ryan would take care of anything that may have happened on his end, which it didn't, and I in no way expected to, but as many members have said, sometimes there's risk associated with used NV, it is what it is.  

If you want the MOD-3 capability, and would end up getting rid of the TNV-14, I would consider selling the warrantied and assembled unit on the EE or something, and putting the money towards a MOD-3 system, which I believe you can purchase as a complete system as well, and I believe even "a la carte," the bridge, pods, monocular adapters separately, though I don't think that that's as advertised - don't quote me on that, though.  



I touched on it briefly before - but I think I'm pretty sure that I tried that, and it worked without incident - I'll check again tonight, but my sense is that I almost certainly tried it, and it would have stuck in my mind if it hadn't worked exactly as expected.  

Re: mounts -

I don't own an AKA2, so I can't comment as much on the compatibility of the MOD-3 with the AKA2 - however, I'm fairly certain that the AKA2 is what Ryan (rbhoover) is using with his own MOD-3s, so maybe he'll chime in about his experiences with the AKA2.  

Besides that, the MOD-3 has played fairly well with most of the mounting combinations I've tried - with a couple of notable exceptions:

The monocular adapters do not play nice with the non-THA DDA and the Wilcox L4 G24 (et al) mounting footprint over the left eye -




As you can see here, the IR illuminator housing impinges on the Wilcox mounting shoe, preventing it from mounting.  Over the right eye, there is no problem -




However, as my left eye is my non-dominant eye, and I prefer my monocular over my non-dom, the non-THA DDA is simply put, incompatible with the MOD-3 and L4 G24.  Based on the photographs, it looks like the THA adapter would allow the monocular housing to clear the dovetail shoe, but then it would put the monocular out of alignment for my eyes, which are located quite well with the stock, non-THA DDA, making the DDA in any form likely an untenable solution for me.  

For this reason, I'm likely parting with my beloved DDA in the near future, and already have a Wilcox "I"-Arm on the way to me, which I will update with compatibility information once it arrives.  

The DDA does, however, mount with no problems on both sides with the Norotos TATM, and I suspect it probably would with the AKA2 as well, but I cannot say for certain:








The DDA also presents another problem that I'm interested to see how the Wilcox "I"-Arm compares to -

With the USGI "J"-Arm, the arm mounting footprint just clears the release latch on the monocular adapter, allowing the "J"-Arm to be semi-permanently mounted, and really "cranked down" for stability to the monocular adapter, and still be able to mount the optical pod:








With the DDA, however, this is not the case:



The edge of the DDA just slightly overlaps the latch for the optical pod release, just enough so that it cannot be depressed while the DDA is securely installed.






This is not necessarily a huge problem, as it's still a lot more modularity than offered by a PVS-14 setup (e.g.), and the DDA in fact mounts up extremely solidly to the monocular setup:






It just means that you can't do a "tool-less," "in the field" swap between the binocular bridge and a DDA equipped monocular adapter.  If it weren't for the other, larger compatibility issue with the L4 G24, I probably would have simply relieved the edge of the DDA ever so slightly (probably wouldn't even need a Dremel, just some sandpaper ) so that it cleared the latch.  

In the general sense, though, it equates to the fact that while the Norotos DDA can be used with the MOD-3 monocular adapters, it's perhaps not the best available solution, and may not work with every single combination.  

As I've said, I have a Wilcox "I"-Arm coming (supposed to be delivered Friday), so I'll update with the monocular adapter interface to the Wilcox arm, hypothetically, I'd like to simply be able to mount my USGI "J"-Arm to one monocular adapter, and the Wilcox to another in a "semi-permanent" condition so that my optical pods could "live" in the binocular bridge, and then if I had someone else with me, I could just slide them off, and install the "J"-Arm equipped unit as a loaner, and the use the "I"-Arm with the L4 G24.  

The other mount compatibility issue is using the MOD-3s as binoculars with the TATM.  Unlike the DDA/G24 issue, this is not necessarily an incompatibility issue, but more of an inconvenience issue - when the MOD-3 BNVD is installed to the TATM - the dovetail release knob on the TATM's mounting shoe is almost "enclosed" by the power knob on the BNVD bridge:










The result is that the release knob cannot be easily grasped as designed to release the device, instead, you have to approach it from the horizontal face alone, and apply enough tension to get it to rotate and release the device - meaning that it cannot be done quickly, and is practically impossible (at least, for my slender musician's hands ) to remove while the mount is still attached to a helmet on your head.

The upside of this, of course, is that it locks super solid, and is not accidentally going anywhere - but it does mean that you're not quickly removing the NOD and stowing it "in-stride."  Once again, not a huge deal depending on use and intent, but worth knowing.  

Really in terms of mount compatibility, at least based on the combinations I've tried -

The DDA is probably not the friendliest device to mount interface available for the MOD-3.  It is what it is, and can work with some combinations, but I wouldn't call it universal.  

The MOD-3 BNVD interfaces correctly and solidly with the TATM, but is not the most convenient - however, the TATM is, too, an older generation mount - superseded for most by the AKA2, though it does have a couple of stable fans here in the NV forum at least, myself included.  I won't and don't have a problem using the MOD-3 with the TATM, I just know that once I put them on my head, they're staying there until I have a chance to take the helmet off, and a second to get the NODs off, again, not a big deal, but also not as convenient as, say, the L4 G24's release button, which is well protected from accidental release, but if intended, the MOD-3 can be removed from any position, in any orientation or situation.  



I'll get to this in another post (hopefully later tonight), with more photos coming.  

~Augee

Thanks to Ryan at Nightlong Industries,llc I am now apart of the MOD-3 club.  He personally delivered mine to me this afternoon.  This bino setup is sweet!!  Once you go to binos/duals, you'll never want to go back.  This weekend will be the true test for me on them as i'll take them out coyote hunting.  Should be a blast with these





 

I'm not 100% certain what you mean by "tensioners," but on both the monocular and bridge adapters, the optical pods are secured by spring loaded latches that fit into "notches" on the optical pod dovetails.






The latches are depressed to allow the optical pod to slide in and then released when the "notch" is lined up with the latch, securing the optical pod.  






There is not, however, any kind of additional "tensioner" other than the spring pressure that the latch itself is applying to keep the optical pod tightly secured within the dovetail such as an o-ring, or cam, etc. that applies constant pressure/tension.  FWIW, the binocular bridge latches seem larger and to have more purchase, as well as stronger spring tension keeping the optical pod locked in place, than the monocular adapters.  

To that end, there is potential for the optical pod to mounting shoe interface to loosen over time, however, how much of a problem this becomes in the future if at all is obviously something has yet to be seen.  

This concerns me ever so slightly (remembering, however, that there is no other such "tensioner" in the actual dovetail and mount design besides a spring loaded latch as well, though the latch is more substantial) - however, even if it becomes a problem, I don't think it's insurmountable, even within the same optical pod format, which is really the expensive piece of the puzzle - since it houses the image intensifier tube itself, and is the part that needs to be purged, etc.  

As I mentioned before, and had even in my "theoretical" post, I think something that integrates some sort of rubber gasket and a cam could very easily take care of any tension problems between the optical pod and adapter without significantly changing the footprint of the optical pod or the adapter.

~Augee

Hey Augee, very nice! I kinda regret not getting it... I am running dual Pitbulls... but oh well!!  

BTW, I just noticed, but you don't need to use the retainer rings to use the demist shields: If you turn them around they snap onto the eyepiece like this:



Cheers.
-G.

HA!

I never realized that!  Might have to give it a try, I've just always had 'em, so always used 'em.  

Issues and Gripes:

So - hopefully tomorrow I should be able to jump into the part, next to pictures, that everyone's really interested in - field reports.

However, for a couple of different reasons, not the least of which is that it's late now, and I don't feel like typing them, but right now, I'm going to just lay out some of the issues and gripes I have with the MOD-3s so far.

One thing I want to say, though - is that if it wasn't abundantly clear already - I'm a huge fan of the MOD-3s, and I am extremely happy to have gotten them and had the opportunity to try them out - a point which I think will come out even more clearly in the field reports.  

The other reason is that while I'm gushing about them in the field reports, I think it will be useful to placing these "issues" in context as relatively minor in the grand scheme and practical use of the MOD-3.  

At the end of the day, no new product is ever "perfect," and there is almost always room for improvement, and the MOD-3s are no exception - however, one of the reasons that I wanted to jump on the MOD-3s as soon as possible, even to the point of being one of the first, was because of the potential I see in the modular technology and format presented - while the MOD-3s are awesome, they also have a lot of room to grow in a lot of interesting directions (I will discuss this a little bit more in another post after some field reports).  To that end, both Ryan and Adam have, as far as I can tell, been extremely receptive to receiving my feedback as I've been finding out little things here and there.

While I was not a part of the design of the MOD-3, and in all reality, cannot claim that they "stole my idea" from August, and had a product ready to market by January, I do feel a little "ownership" in having independently come to the conclusion that modularity was a "way ahead" that offered a great deal of promise, and I am and have been excited to have the opportunity to toss in my two cents to anything that may come in the future.  

So - with that, a couple of little things:

As you can see in ford_shooter's photographs above - from Night Long, the MOD-3s arrive with a lanyard already attached, similar to the "string" found on the MS2000 strobe, for those of you that are familiar.  Just like the shoelace on the PVS-14, and the lanyard on the MS2000 - I literally removed the string before even putting batteries in the unit.  

Just personal preference - they're not my thing.  

When I removed the string, however, I was surprised to see bright silver staring back at me - the part of the bridge that the lanyard is attached through is aluminium, and when I removed the string, I found unanodized, unfinished aluminum underneath, most likely, the holes for the lanyard were drilled after the "base" of the bridge was anodized.  

Not a big deal, but something to take note of - though perhaps it is simply the fact that mine was such an early example.  

Anyways - once the lanyard is removed, however, there was not, as far as I could tell, anywhere to secure a retention lanyard like the Wilcox retractable lanyards anywhere on the device, unless you wanted to secure it to the battery cap tether.  Moreover, after a decade of using worn, beaten AN/PVS-14s with USGI Rhinos and J-Arms before entering the world of "premium mounts" and privately owned NV, bungees, tethers, lashings, and rubber bands had been a way of life in terms of adding stability to a helmet mounted device.  

Unfortunately, as designed, the MOD-3 does not necessarily have a convenient way to do so, and the lanyard holes were too small for the Ops Core bungees on my Base Jump, or the bungees I have installed on my ACHs.  

Again, neither of these were major problems - for the retention lanyard, I simply took some 550 cord an a mini-"S" biner, and made a simple retention lanyard that could be used with all of my helmet configurations, and looped it over the battery compartment.  In this configuration, it is retained by the battery cap tether, however, it doesn't interfere with any of the other functions of the device.  

For stability, I simply installed (with some difficulty, but I managed ) small key-rings in the lanyard holes to allow me to have somewhere to hook the bungees - because of the power knob, I did need to use a slightly larger ring on the right side than on the left side.  

Though not visible in the photographs, I also installed a key ring to one of the monocular adapters, which did come with an eyelet, but no lanyard.  

What I'd love to see, even if I was never able to avail myself of it (probably wouldn't be worth getting a whole new bridge) would be to have the lanyard omitted entirely, and eyelets, either on the bridge, or on the actual optical pod show for bungees, key/split rings, etc. - rather than the holes simply drilled through the bridge.  

Another small issue I had with the bridge, was that the optical pod release/install latches are flat pieces of aluminium that need to be pushed inboard in order to release or install the optical pods to the bridge.  Here, I think I would prefer to have a slight lip on the latch, maybe about 50% taller than the rest of the latch, that could provide a little "lip," maybe with some serrations to make it easier to press the latch in to release the optical pods.  As designed now, even with a lip, the latches would be protected from accidental activation by the IPD adjustment knobs.  

The final note on the dovetail shoes for the optical pods - as designed now, the optical pods can be removed and installed from either direction - while this does have some upsides, particularly with the monocular adapters, but to a lesser extent with the BNVD bridge as well, I found myself kind of wishing that there were travel limiters - that is to say, even just a closed end on one side, to prevent "overshooting" the latch when installing the optical pods.  Currently, depending on how much attention I'm paying, when installing the optical pods, I will sometimes have to go back and forth a little bit, until I find the "sweet spot," and the latch and notch are aligned, and the optical pod snaps into place.  IMHO, if the pod simply stopped at one end, and the latch could simply be released, I think it might be just that ever bit more user-friendly, and I might be willing to give up the ability to remove and install the optical pod from either direction.  

This point in particular, I'd like to hear others' thoughts on as well.  

The final issue I've had, which is again, relatively minor - is with the power knob.  On the one hand, the "Aimpoint style" power knob is big, and nice, but on the other hand, I'm just used to the shape and "feel" of the PVS style knob, this in and of itself is not really a big deal at all - however - having been used to PVS-14s for so long - the first real adjustment for me was getting used to having the power knob on the front, rather than the back of the unit.  While a simple change - this has/did mess with my "reflexes" a little bit in terms of turning the device "on," or "off," and perhaps more importantly - activating the IR flood.  

As many of you invariably know, on the PVS-14, in order to activate the IR flood, the user must either push the knob past tactile resistance for a momentary flood, or pull the knob out and turn it for constant on.  With either option, however, there is a very tactile distinction between activation of the IR flood, and turning the device off - using the IR flood has to be a deliberate decision and action, and cannot easily be done accidentally.  

With the MOD-3's "Aimpoint-like" power knob, however, the knob simply "clicks over" to a "constant on" IR flood, on both the BNVD bridge, and monocular adapters.  On the BNVD bridge in particular, coupled with being on the "wrong" side compared to the universally familiar PVS-14, this means that it is remarkably easy to simply accidentally turn the IR flood on, and moreover, have it stay on, making it more difficult to maintain IR light discipline in situations where it might be warranted.

With the MOD-3 not being, to my knowledge, at least, a military system, this is not, perhaps a terribly important issue, however, personally, and coming from a military background, I would far prefer the knob to have the same "PVS-style" feel, where switching from normal operation to IR flood requires consciously overcoming some mechanical resistance, and activating the constant on function requires a deliberate act, versus simply "clicking over."  



Again - the various grips and complaints I have are all relatively minor, nothing that's really a huge issue or design problem, just minor suggestions for improvement - none of these change the fact that I am absolutely enamored with what the MOD-3 has to offer.  

Coming up -

Field Reports

What I'd Like to See in the Future


~Augee

What! No water testing!?! Where's your sense of adventure Augee!? I want my money back damn it....

Now! Aside from not wanting to risk a unit that cost you several thousands of dollars to put together, just so you could drop it in water to entertain us freeloaders, you are doing one hell of a job. So my thanks again!

A couple of thoughts. I've used small split rings in the past as well. I've also had good luck using various pieces of fishing gear for lanyards. One of my favorites was a modified leader line. Possibly better then what you described, and possibly not?

In my original question regarding mounts, I mistook your Tatam for a AKA2. I don't think your issue with the release lever would happen on the AKA2 since its centered in the front. I'm also interested in what you discover with the Wilcox I arm. I don't suppose you have access to the curved version with on/off switch?

Could the smooth aluminum release latches on the bridge be improved with something like pistol grip wrap from Talon or a similar brand? From the sounds of it I agree, if they are difficult to manipulate a permanent solution should be found by either checkering or adding a shelf as you said. Since I'm only waiting on finding time to make the post office to send in my tubes I'll also be addressing this if I find it a issue. Talon grip tape sounds like a good fix, but I don't have them in hand. Thoughts?

Yup, it's a super easy fix, and I would have gone ahead and done it if it hadn't been for the fact that the DDA was incompatible with the G24.  



On the bridge for use with the bungees, I think unless/until integrated bungee hooks are added to the housing or bridge design, that split rings are probably the best option, since the rigid rings allow for relatively easy installation and removal of the hooks that, unless I'm thinking of the wrong thing, even wire leader line would have too much "give" once tension was put on them.  

The best option, of course, would be integrated loops, besides that, I think the only way you'd get too much better than split rings would be small "D" shaped rings, rather than circular rings due to the straight drilled lanyard holes in the bridge.  

Honestly, IMHO, the smooth latches are not "that big" of a problem, to which point I probably wouldn't bother trying to add some sort of traction to them, it's just one of those little refinements that would be really nice on later/subsequent models/generations.  



Finally, no photographs yet, but I did get the Wilcox "I"-Arm, the straight version with no on/off switch - no photos yet, but I did give it a try in my living room just to get an idea.  

The mounting arm does still impinge on the latch ever so slightly - but it would require even less material removed than the DDA, literally a "touch" with a Dremel, or even just a little shave with a knife on a corner to get a little bit extra clearance, which I'll probably do this weekend.

The "I"-Arm works pretty well, though I had wanted to avoid the additional armature design, so it looks like I'll be getting rid of the non-THA DDA.  FWIW, the "tool-free" thumbscrew feature of the Wilcox arm is a lot more convenient than the Phillips head screw on the DDA.  I still think that an AN/PVS-18-style monocular adapter, while probably more expensive would be a great addition to the MOD-3, and theoretically, the additional cost would be offset by obviating the need to purchase an expensive dovetail adapter for the monocular, and I would guess that in a removable dovetail design, it could even, hypothetically speaking, be made bayonet compatible.  

WRT eye-relief with the "I"-Arm, I think there's enough eye relief to work for me - but just barely, and I can see why some people can't use it at all, I felt like it wouldn't hurt to have a little bit more rearward adjustment.  

I know the field report(s) are overdue, but I'll have them up soon - this is why I decided to break this whole review up.  

~Augee

Augee,

Thank you for: the nod to the MOD 3 in the MK18 thread, the link to your 1st post, and then this review.  This is exactly what I have been looking for, and probably would have wound up with dual 14's, or compromised my need for multiple monoculars with a dedicated bino.  I have already spoken to RB and I am just waiting on some different pricing options before I pull the trigger.  You surely kept me from some buyers remorse.

Glad I could help.  

Newer photograph with ARC adapters and ComTac IIs installed -




Also, FYSA, since some folks have asked about MX-11769 manual gain optical pods - Nightlong's facebook page says "coming soon" -




Again, no affiliation, so no "inside" knowledge on pricing or availability, just sharing "open source."  

~Augee

Do you know if the 11769 pods will be available without tubes for us DIY types?

Sorry, I should have clarified that I have no inside knowledge about anything, to include pricing and availability.  

I would imagine that you could probably get them, especially since AB has been so friendly to DIYers in the past, and I think someone mentioned in the other thread about pricing for just the optical pod kits, monocular adapter kits, and bridge separately, but again, that's just my guess.  

~Augee

Sucked it up and ordered the in stock MOD 3 with ITT VG's. I thought about blem's, and sure wish I had existing tubes I could throw in there, but I guess we all gotta' start somewhere, and this will be all I "need" for awhile...  Placed the order Wednesday night and confirmed with Ryan yesterday afternoon.  My order was in stock and shipped.  Went back on the site this morning and they are out of stock for all, so I guess I had good timing.  Ryan was awesome to work with, and his new site is 100% better than the old one.  I don't have them in hand yet, but hopefully on order is good enough for the MOD 3 club

Lest anyone question the benefits of the modular - and more important, separate-able MOD-3 system -

My buddy shooting my M4A1 CQBR clone with the KAC NT4QDSS and a LaserMax UNI-IR:






























He's using half of the MOD-3 in a monocular configuration wearing an ACH and Norotos 1-Hole shroud with the TATM Long Arm and USGI "J"-Arm, while the video was "filmed" through the other monocular adapter, and set up with the Wilcox "I"-Arm and being used with the L4 G24.

~Augee

This:

The "full" MOD-3 kit comes with five basic components -

2 ea. Optical Pods with image intensifier tubes and optics
1 ea. Binocular bridge mount
2 ea. Monocular adapters

The optical pods can be removed from the bridge, and the monocular adapters installed, and function essentially identically to a PVS-14 minus manual gain controls (a DGC version is supposed to be forthcoming, and a couple of teaser photographs have been posted, but no release date or price that I'm aware of).  

~Augee

New photo with Ops Core helmet cover:




~Augee

I hope to have mine in a few months!  Great thread Augee, like always.

Augee, what are the available options for mounting the dual tube mode Mod 3 to a helmet?

I assume that my gen 2 Norotos milspec mount is no good?

I'd assume so. The Mod 3 uses a Dovetail interface. Cheapest option might be to get a Rhino II, aka Titanium mount and order a dovetail adapter for a AKA2 mount. I've never done this but know it can be done and is a good deal cheaper.

You can also find the TATM used fairly well priced as it is a older design that originally sold at 500 bucks. I mostly use the TATM but have a AKA2 as well with the slide for dovetail or bayo. Not using my AKA2 much I am planning to sell it soon as I have to many mounts I don't need.

I picked up a Norotos Rhino dovetail mount from eBay for $30.  I was surprised to find it since I had never seen one before and hadn't recalled anyone ever mentioning that this type of mount existed.  It looks like a regular Norotos Rhino  mount but has the dovetail mount.  Here is the link to the original listing.

Right! I always forget about the TATM. Augee mentioned a interference issue with the TATM is memory serves. I have a AKA2 and will report back (next week!?) once my Mod 3 is in hand.

I remember the issue and it was minor. I read it as well.

If you decide to sell the AKA2, send me a PM, I may be interested.

This is what Augee said in his review (specific to the TATM):

huh, never seen that before

The cage number is ITT. Norotos must have made it for them.

Cool find.