Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/4/2003 4:43:27 PM EST
Can you get them as civilians. Just wanting to know. Thanks.


Tic
Link Posted: 1/4/2003 5:43:27 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/4/2003 9:52:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/4/2003 9:53:08 PM EST by maelcum]
Quite frankly, they're not worth what people are paying for them. OK, ok. I can see the rabid collector who just HAS to have everything spending a few grand for an otherwise almost impossible to find item, but when people are paying up to $4500 for them, it's just insane. I had one for a little while. It is almost worth the $400 or so that the gov't pays for them. I sold it and replaced it with several FDA kosher (because they have a visible on/off indicator (easily "muted" if necessary)) Corsak lasers made in Belarus, and they actually are alot more satisfying (the brightness control is EXTREMELY useful), and much cheaper. BTW Wes, the Food and Drug Administration are the ones who regulate lasers :)
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 5:38:19 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:13:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/5/2003 6:14:36 AM EST by Cardinal]
My dream would be to wake up in a world were the burocrats had [i]some[/i] common-sense. But I know thats a contradiction-in-terms. If they had common-sense in the first place, they wouldn't be burocrats. They wouldn't have gotten themself a [b]decent[/b] job.... "You can't buy that IR laser because its dangerous if you point it at someones eyes and turn it on..." But what about if you point the gun at someones eyes and turn that "on"? Is that so much safer? But ofcourse the gun makes an audible sound (however brief) when used...perhaps thats why its ok... [>:/]
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:44:32 AM EST
Heck, I work for an LE agency and they want OURS back, which the government gave to us a while back. Go with an eye safe commerical equivalent. You'll pay alot less for the same level of capability.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 9:45:55 AM EST
Ah but you see, in reality the PAQ-4C *IS* an eyesafe laser. In fact, on page 1 of the manual, this is what it states: "The infrared beam is considered eyesafe based on military standards. Suitable precautions must be taken to avoid overexposure to the infrared beam." It then goes on to tell you not to stare into it, look at it through binoculars, shine it onto mirrored surfaces (that's a neat one - how exactly are you supposed to avoid doing this in MOUT?) or shine the beam into other individuals' eyes. But these rules apply to most of the IIIa and lower, non-licensed lasers FDA considers commercially acceptable. The FDA considers the PAQ-4C to be a Class IIIb laser - these kind of lasers generally require a license. However, Class IIIb lasers are 5-500 mW lasers. The PAQ-4C supposedly has a power output of 0.7mW, which is not even classified as a Class IIIa laser such as the Insight M6 is. The reason the FDA considers the PAQ-4C a IIIb laser is as near as I can tell simply because it's infrared. This isn't entirely without merit - an IR laser is CERTAINLY a little more hazardous than a normal laser because you don't know when it's on, or shining directly into your eyes. A visible or audible on/off indicator goes a long ways towards negating this problem, hence FDA actually seems to be ok with low-power IR spectrum lasers that have visible or audible indicator of operation. This letter from Insight to the FDA seems to support this: [url]http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/00/feb00/021500/var01.pdf[/url] Given this, I'm not sure why Insight doesn't make the public happy and release a reasonably priced PAQ-4C with a visible LED indicator. It seems unlikely that the FDA could make the case that simply operating in the IR spectrum makes an otherwise Class II laser a (much more powerful) Class IIIb. For this matter, there is probably quite a commercial market out there for a _visible_ laser version of the PAQ-4C. It's entirely possible that there's extra-legal pressure for them not to do so from government sources - the FDA has not been very clear about any of this, and almost seems not to want to be. Wow, doesn't this story sound familiar? Almost as if there are people working at the FDA who are some really Altogether Terrific Fellows ;)
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 10:46:32 AM EST
PAQ-4 aren't all that great. Need to be re-sighted constantly if you use it on duty. Ours didn't last long so we took them off.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 11:41:10 AM EST
The issue with the zero is not the PAC-4 - it is the mount. If you get the KAC QD mount this negates the zero issue. -Kevin
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 12:34:15 PM EST
Thanks for the replys fellows. I didnt know it was considered a sensitive issue. If I did something wrong Im sorry. Tic
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 6:38:08 PM EST
Stand at ease there Tic, you just happen to post about a topic thats been recently beat to death. Everyone means well. AR15.com is the place to learn. You came to the right place. What's been stated about the Corsak's is word. Get one of them if you wish to indulge the IR world. I had a PAC-4C for some time and they are military hardware. Stout as all hell and meet the Mil-Spec. Just ask yourself if you realy need one and want to shell out the bucks. Put things into perspective. Lasers are kewl and technicly are a piece of functioning hardware. If you love experimenting and AR's you'll get into the laser world sooner or later. But its a side step, so to speak. Optics of good quality offer you much more in a general perspective. Stick around and keep the questions coming. Don't worry,everyone started with a first post.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 9:31:16 PM EST
Tic, IR lasers makes the difference in night figthing . If you need that level of performances you can go also with the Surefire L75 , a really top quality device , pricey but probably the best one . PP out
Top Top