Hello all,

Since I started TNVC, my primary goal (and will remain) is to continue to educate our customers and ourselves in the world of NV. That’s right, we do not know it all, and the day we as a company stop “learning” is the day we fail our customers.  Our entire staff here at TNVC continues to train throughout the year with many other trainers, you can see most of them on our web site but we also train with the likes of Pat Rogers, Larry Vickers. etc. that keep us on a firm foundation with the latest trends and tactical know how’s. Folks may be surprised at that, but it’s been my policy to share and support as many tactical trainers as we can so the community at large benefits from what we learn.

With that said, we here at TNVC have been GREATLY concerned on some of the latest marketing myths about placing PVS-14’s on .308’s and higher weapon platforms.  We began to research to see if something has changed with the current PVS-14 Mil-Spec builds from both ITT and L3.

Not only has ITT stated all along their PVS-14’s are not rated for anything higher than a 5.56 (500g’s), but we also just received official news from the top engineering staff at L3, (NOT FROM A SUPPLIER),  “While the L3-PVS-14 unit is a Mil-Spec unit and built under contract, it is not rated for anything higher than a 5.56”.

Special consideration here:  These recoil restrictions do NOT apply to the extraordinary clip-on devices such as the PVS-22 (FLIR), PVS-24 (L3) and the PVS-27 (FLIR). The FLIR devices use a patented recoil mitigation system for very high recoil platforms well above .308’s, while the PVS-24 encapsulates the tube for .308 recoil with no issues. Most importantly, the body housing themselves including their attach points for these clip-ons are also built and tested for high recoil itself which obviously makes perfect sense.

Back to the PVS-14’s…  It should also be noted here, the same commercial L3 body housing is the same Mil-Spec production mold from Insight. ITT’s own body housings such as the commercial NE-PVS-14-17 also use a housing built from their own Mil-Spec contract.  (More on the PVS-14 body housings below).

Not surprising to us at all, no one at ITT or L3 has ever recommended putting a PVS-14 on anything higher than a 5.56 for good reason.  Besides the obvious of the NV intensifier tube itself not being encapsulated by needed means, the body housing attach points themselves of both companies PVS-14’s use a ¼-20 small 1/8th depth threaded screw insert held together by thin plastic. The other mounts attach points some PVS-14 mount manufactures (like our company) use the PVS-14 lens locking ring to hold a twist mount type QD device.  Once again, this ring is a thin plastic piece threaded onto plastic threads onto the body housing itself and are NOT solid attach points for high recoil systems.

A few folks have reported over the years they have used a PVS-14 on .308’s and higher and had no issues. While that may be true with limited rounds down range, what happens when that unit fails under recoil from either the NV tube itself or a catastrophic failure of the mounting point? While commercial users unfortunately may deem to chance this from creative marketing from other re-sellers with “special exclusive builds and/or warranties, TNVC will not endorse this, nor can we tell our LE/Mil users there is chance of failure on a 2-way range all in the name of a “sale”.  

What we do believe in is the NV manufacturers themselves ITT or L3 NOT A DISTRIBUTOR or SUPPLIER telling us what they think for a "sale", (suppliers are NOT manufactures). ITT and the L3 engineering staff (the manufacturers) tells us that THEY rate their units for. In this case both  ITT and L3 do not recommend mounting a PVS-14 on high caliber weapon platforms! We consider them to be the end all experts in the design and capabilities of these NV platforms.  After all, there is a half million of these units out there and we feel ITT and L3 know a thing or two about the engineering of these systems above anyone else.

In closing, we have a responsibility to give factual information about NV systems and putting PVS-14’s on high recoil weapons can and will get someone hurt one day.  This creative marketing some are doing without ANY substantiated testing above and beyond what THE manufacturers are stating is something we cannot endorse no matter what the cost or warranty “sell”.  

We hope this may clear up the myths of the creative marketing out there that all NV consumers must be aware of.  


Thank you.

Victor Di Cosola


P.S. Folks may want to get a copy of the December 2011 Soldier of Fortune Magazine when it hits the newsstands in November…A wee bit of this information is talked about.  

Actually, the PVS-29 is a PVS-14 with a clip-on Thermal device for thermal overlay.  At least, that what it was last time I heard.

Hey Johnny.  Early on KAC contracted OSTI (now FLIR) with their early clip-ons but had a contract disagreement that has been in the court house for a LONG time. I highly doubt KAC is licensed from them to do much of anything.

Presently, I do not know what KAC puts inside their PVS-30 systems, but for the most part all their 26's use ITT Pinnacle Mil-Spec tubes and handle recoil just fine from .308's conducted from our own shoot reports. Hope this helps.

Vic

Thank you.  

It still seems some believe a "supplier" or "distributor" is a manufacturer.  Just because someone assembles a PVS-14 with L3 components like we do with our L3 units, does NOT make us or them the actual manufacturer.    

There is a CLEAR distinction here, (I hope all understand) that the folks who engineer and actually fabricate  the NV Intensifier tube and the body housing is the manufacturer.  In this case, it's ITT and L3 specifically, NOT a builder or distributor who may build units for others and say this of that, and offer their own warranty to roll the dice.

We sell L3 PVS-14's as well and have for a LONG time. I could surely do the same and go against the manufacturers engineering tests, and sell our L3-PVS-14's with a "sell" warranty over and above the durability, safety standards etc. and roll the dice with retail price hikes to offset the return %.. That I will NOT do especially when we sell a great many devices to LE and Mil folks in harms way. Not gona happen.  

We do what were told, and in this case the BOTH ITT and L3 say putting a PVS-14 on anything above a .5.56 is not recommend. Anyone who knows anything about mounting points should know better by looking at how a PVS-14 is built to think it can take repeated poundings from recoil. Aside from the tube risks, the mounting points are brittle to say the least and were not EVER made for recoil to begin with. They were made for head mounting initially PERIOD ever since their inception.

Vic

As we've mentioned, we've had body housings and tubes break on .308's with PVS-14's even though others have reported success.  We go by what the manufacturers tell us about their ratings. Monoculars were never designed to be used as a weapon night sight.  They were primarily designed for head mounting.

Get yourself a IR Laser, (easy to get nowadays since they are Civy Legal Class 1's out there) and let your laser to all the talking. Your eyeballs got the same 1.1x magnification looking through the 14 while it's on your head vs. weapon mounting looking through a MRDS.    

They are different and recommended for larger caliber rifles such as .308's and above. They are called Clip-on devices such as the PVS-22, PVS-24, PVS-26, and PVS-27's.   They are a marvel of technology that allows the shooter to shoot with his day scope peering into one of these devices without ever losing his day dope.  

Vic

When you get that 2nd PVS-14, you'll need a great PVS-14 dual mount, give THIS one some serious consideration.

Indeed Wes, VERY slick mount. We've been involved with testing of this mount since last year.  It also can come in a Wilcox configuration along with PVS-15/21 configurations.

The dual MUM mount they did several years ago is still one of the best we've used, a marvel of engineering went into that one.

The obvious is often overlooked.  Thank you for bringing this up.    

Vic

15 years to catch up ?  That's exactly what they said when I started building a 7.62 from scratch a  few weeks ago.  

Keep it technical ... uh, right TBK1.  This thread started out as an extremely thinly veiled LaRue bash ... and hasn't slowed down.

The last laugh and all that.  



ETA - To even the most casual observer, and completely out of arfcom's character, this so-called technical forum has been sold to the highest bidder ... and it's now chocked full of the invariably unbiased opinions.

This thread is not about technical data, this thread is about  bashing competition.

And I laugh.

I didn't ask to be here ... just for grins, one of you dragged over an ad I got going elsewhere, along with a big fan.

It's simple - Don't start no sh*t, won't be no sh*t.

Meh, it's too late now, you've done ruffled my feathers.  We're gonna get to see who knows what and when.

To all––

I am not going to lock this thread.  Please keep your posts on topic and businesslike, as well as professional.  Individuals will be dealt with, but as I said, I'm not going to lock the thread.