Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/20/2002 2:12:27 PM EST
On the SOPOD M4 assessory kit, what is the model number and name of VISIBLE laser used? I don't mean the AN/PAQ4C or the AN/PEQ2. I have a nice picture that we've all seen of the M4A1 w/ all the goodies, but I can't seem to get it to post.
Link Posted: 12/20/2002 2:43:39 PM EST
This the picture? [img]www.specialoperations.com/images/sopmodm4.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 12/20/2002 6:38:12 PM EST
The visible laser is the AN/PEQ-5 manufactured by Insight Technologies Ltd. The laser used to cost $1100 when it was available. I'm told that Insight no longer sells it to anyone outside US Govt. agencies. Wes GRant may be able to confirm/refute this. I believe Pinco Palla has pictures of his PEQ-5 in his photo gallery
Link Posted: 12/21/2002 2:09:11 AM EST
Yes, thats the picture and the laser that I was interested in. Thanks again
Link Posted: 12/28/2002 5:17:49 PM EST
Okay, what is the visiable light pictured above? I'm told it comes with a built in mount.
Link Posted: 12/28/2002 7:10:45 PM EST
I believe it's made by Insight Technologies, but from discussions here, the reviews of its reliablity and performance have not been good.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:46:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/29/2002 2:47:48 PM EST by Pat_Rogers]
I've never seen the AN/PEQ-5 actually issued in the Marine Corps SOPMOD Kit- probably because there was never a need for it. The AN/PEQ-2A was also issued in place of the PAQ-4C. The VLI was not one of Insight Technology's better products. It was bad from the start and got worse with use. It had multiple failings, and inspite of various attempts to fix it, it has been dumped (at least by the Force Reconnaissance community) for the SureFire M900 or 962 Universal lights. The Reflex sight was also a problem, and that was replaced by the Aimpoint M and now M2.
Link Posted: 12/30/2002 6:51:28 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 2:35:19 AM EST
Hi Wes, Thanks! It's been real busy (obviously) so i don't get as much time to run through the disinformation cowpath as i would like. How are you?
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 5:26:23 PM EST
Patrick Rogers, as in author of "The Tactical Carbine Course Workbook"?
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 3:31:41 AM EST
Originally Posted By JohnM: Patrick Rogers, as in author of "The Tactical Carbine Course Workbook"?
View Quote
Roger. A little dated now though.
Link Posted: 1/3/2003 2:22:35 AM EST
Some should get the facts straight on the VLI. Not that I am a big fan of large lights but to defend Insight a little I understand that The Navy --Crane got exactly what they asked for. The product was tested by the Government and won over the Surefire product. Problem is the Navy did a crapy job testing and never got the input of users. So shame on the governments buying system and don't blame the light companies who give the government exactly what they asked for. Government could have demanded changed before tens of thousands were sold out there. Now all you hear is the complaints. Steve- user and ex government employee
Link Posted: 1/3/2003 2:48:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/3/2003 3:39:41 AM EST by Pat_Rogers]
Steve, You are correct in stating that they got what they asked for. Ypu may have more infomation re the tests then i do- but that doesn't change the facts that the VLI is useless. Insights makes excellent NV gear- i mentioned that. The first platoon that floated with the SOPMOD kit wrote scathing critiques. Insights made some attempts to fix the problems, without effect. The bottom line is that the VLI is still garbage, and we now use SureFire white lights- something that should have happened- for a lot of reasons- right from the start. We can draw an analogy with other projects. The M1014 is a prime example. The stock has two positions- too short and typical Euro Too Long. When i questiones a Project Officer about it he said "It is adjustable". Yeah, but it doesn't fit most Marines. "Yeah, but there was no ORD for that". Correct- but what about common sense? USMC has spent millions for a lightweight helmet, when the MICH has been available for years. They kept the PASGT profile- althought it is difficult to hear, see, and fight with it. They did not include any Impact Protection- because the ORD did not specify such protection, but Marines are required to wear helmets and body armor while riding in Tac Vehicles- where impact is a major injury producer. We Assault Climb and Urban Climp, Fast Rope and so on, and impact is a major injury producer there. The Acquistion Process is flawed, but there are highlights to be sure. The MICH, FSBE, PCU, MLCS and other programs have been(in the case of some, have the potential to be) extraodinarily successful. Of course, in all of the above, the PO have all been operators. Go figure. Common sense??
Link Posted: 1/3/2003 6:36:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/3/2003 11:41:07 AM EST
Originally Posted By PaulE: The problem with common sense is that it's only common to those who have it. Paul MSTN
View Quote
Very true- did Wes teach you that?
Link Posted: 1/4/2003 1:08:34 AM EST
Top Top