Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 9/12/2011 10:13:26 AM EDT


Anybody know the specs?
Link Posted: 9/12/2011 11:22:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2011 11:25:51 AM EDT by CujoTwoOne]
Link Posted: 9/12/2011 11:26:26 AM EDT
Thanks, but I should have made my question more clear.
Does anybody know the PVS14 specs?
Link Posted: 9/12/2011 11:29:17 AM EDT
Some sort of shock-isolated mount perhaps? That would be awesome, but likely very expensive.
Link Posted: 9/12/2011 11:57:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2011 12:04:06 PM EDT by Dino1130]
Originally Posted By fordkicksass:
Some sort of shock-isolated mount perhaps? That would be awesome, but likely very expensive.


If it is their standard flip to the side mount it has no shock isolation at all (I have one). The pic is to small for me to tell exactly what it is. Just because you can get a tube dealer to gamble that a .308 or 7.62 won't destroy too many housings or tubes for one year does not mean you should do it. As I said before anyone can put a weapons grade ITT or L3 tube in a PVS-14. Even a hand selected high halo tube would fill this role. A PVS-14 was never designed to stand up to this kind of abuse. If someone wants to warranty it for a year that is their choice.

They may hold up for awhile with guys who do limited shooting. IMHO some housings are going to be destroyed as well as tubes. How many ? Don't know, but we will see if the gamble pays off. There is a reason ITT and L3 warranty the PVS-14 on .223 only and not all of it is related to the tube. Wish them luck with this but I would keep Ed's number handy for repairs. Just my .02

ETA : As to the specs of the PVS-14 pictured. I would expect it to be average with a high halo value. No way to tell by just looking at the housing. I have purchased a Larue PVS-14 back in December. While no spec card was included I could put it up against scopes I own that have sheeted tubes. It performed average. Not as good as some scopes I have but on par with what I would consider an average tube. Not horrible, but nothing to call home about either .

Link Posted: 9/12/2011 12:04:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2011 12:27:14 PM EDT by Barliman]

From the LaRue link above:

PVS-14 Specifications:
Magnification: 1X
Field of view, deg: 40°
Lens system: 26mmF/1.2
Lens aperture, mm: 25
Focus range, m/in: 0.24/10" to infinity
Eye relief, mm: 25
Tube reliability standard: 10,000 hours
Operating temperature: -58°F to +131°F
Photocathode type: 18mm GaAs
Photocathode sensitivity, typical, mA/lm: 1350-1800
Resolution, typical, lp/mm: 64
Luminous gain, typical, fl/fc: 35000-75000
Signal-to-noise ratio, typical: 21:1 or better

I think Dino has it nailed with regard to Halo value because LaRue is stating these units were hand selected for them. The price including the flip to the side Larue mount is $ 3,199.95 (corrected price)
Link Posted: 9/12/2011 12:06:20 PM EDT

The tube is also warranted for 5 years by manufacturer - but they don't say who that might be.
Link Posted: 9/12/2011 12:34:11 PM EDT

Anyone have a source at LaRue to get more data?

I am having to think seriously about this one given the combo price point, 5 year mfg warranty and hand selection.
Link Posted: 9/12/2011 12:48:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2011 12:59:54 PM EDT by Dino1130]
We talked about this topic in depth at this link

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_18/350051_Pvs14.html

This link is also interesting for those thinking of putting a PVS-14 on a .308 . The lack of response is the most interesting part.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_219/207969_Optic_Options.html&page=1#i1699738

I would read both these threads in depth before I made my purchase.

No magic PVS-14 exists. Just some willing to gamble not to many will break. I think it is a bad gamble but to each his own. ANY dealer can put a weapons grade tube in a PVS-14. ANY dealer can select out high halo value tubes that are not weapons grade to use in a PVS-14.These are usually lower grade tubes due to the high halo values. Easy to do this but few dealers will because they know it is not a wise endeavor. This is no magic scope, just a calculated experiment at best.
Link Posted: 9/12/2011 1:27:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2011 1:34:38 PM EDT by Barliman]

Just re-read both threads to be sure I was familiar with them (I had posted the link to David's excellent pinned post at the end of one of them)

My recollection is the LaRue site was showing a 1 year mfg warranty on the tube at that time (which you had pointed out was likely AEO Optics and Sightmark sourced)

My thought was that either ITT or L3 were involved this time because of the 5 year mfg. warranty - or maybe one of the other two vendors is teetering on bankruptcy and willing to offer a 5 year warranty they know they won't have to honor.

If it is ITT or L3, they know the PVS-14 won't handle the 7.62 recoil UNLESS they have made a special deal with LaRue for weapons grade tubes at a greatly reduced price (the GWOT wind down is under way courtesy of Obama - Iraq to 3k troops by end of 2011; Afghan withdrawl complete by Sept 2012) due to cancellation of DOD contracts and having done their own shock testing of the LaRue mount and WG tube in a PVS-14 body in their own labs.

Agreed, AEO/Sightmark is most likely but ....

just in case, does anyone have a source inside LaRue?

ETA: My father did shock testing during one of his assignments inside IBM. Most people are not aware that there are highly specialized, very expensive (at that time - this was 20 years ago) and very thin shock absorbing materials that are not commercially available - example - 1/8" high density foam handled up to 400 G's. IBM has always had some of the best researchers in the world working on problems that do not see the light of day for years ... if ever.
Link Posted: 9/12/2011 2:04:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2011 2:06:44 PM EDT by Dino1130]
ITT or L3 won't warranty a PVS-14 above .223. Now, if a private dealer wants to offer extra coverage it is up to the individual dealer. TNVC says their scopes are good to go on a 6.8 SPC. This is reasonable as the round has a G force that most people accept it will handle just fine.

The issue with putting a weapons grade or high halo value tube in a PVS-14 for me has nothing to do with whether the tube will hold up. If the tube is selected very carefully I am sure most will be fine. The housing itself is my concern. Don't forget this scope from the outset was to be head mounted. Rifle mounting was a afterthought and with testing they determined it was OK on a .223 .

Nobody that I know has ANY testing done on a .308. The scope is plastic with retaining rings and lenses attached to plastic. I think anyone that says this is OK is nuts. If they have extensive testing to back up the claims I (or anyone I know) have never seen it. The warranty is strictly a dealer warranty. No way ITT or L3 would say it is OK to use a PVS-14 housing on a .308 . The threaded hole on the bottom of a PVS-14 is just imbedded in thin plastic, looks just like a Heli-Coil possibly held in place by plastic threads or maybe some epoxy. Exposing this screw hole to the forces of a .308 is a recipe for a broken housing.

Using a ring mount on the objective lens would fare no better as it too is held in place by a retaining ring backed by thin plastic. Whatever method you use you are asking for trouble and I bet ITT and L3 know it won't hold up or they would have sold this option with their weapons grade tubes long ago as a factory scope.

I just think this is a huge mistake that is bound to end up with folks having broken housings. I cringe putting mine on a .223 . No way in hell anyone can convince me a .308 is fine without hard data to back up the claims.
Link Posted: 9/12/2011 4:31:06 PM EDT

I am in agreement with what you are saying on this topic. I have little hope that this is a magic solution - because if it was, they would charge more money for it. I will call them in the morning and see if I can get the name of the manufacturer and additional details.



From my limited knowledge, it looks like they are using the J arm attachment point on the PVS-14 and that would be another set of problems that are bound to come up (i.e. cantilever moment, screw mount not fully tightened, etc, etc).

Link Posted: 9/12/2011 4:36:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2011 5:34:09 PM EDT by Dino1130]
I like Larue and his products. I own many of them. That said, they are not experts in night vision. Great people but I think they are being misled by certain dealers (suppliers ) who have sales at the top of the agenda.

The reason the scope is cheaper is due to the quality of the tube and who makes it. In all honesty a Weapons grade tube is just a poor performer ! It is a joke that this is some magic "heavy duty" tube. They are the tubes people don't want because of the LARGE halo. Magically they are "weapons grade" ... Whole lot of bullshit in my honest opinion ! Great marketing though, if that is what you believe.
Link Posted: 9/12/2011 5:49:29 PM EDT
OK, this thread just cross the line from interesting to dangerous. It is one thing to start selling out-of-spec products. It is another entirely if people start to rely on them for life-or-death applications and though most of us sit on the safe side of shooting at things that don't shoot back, not all of us do and if you're going to treat your NV gear as life support equipment, you'd better be damn sure it is going to function as expected and when expected.

Going blind in a firefight is NOT a situation you ever want to be in. If you are a cop or a soldier looking on in interest at this thread, then you need to be careful about what weighting you put on the this topic. People are attributing all kinds of intent to this product without knowing what went in behind the scenes.

From the appearance of the advertising, it appears exactly as though this product is rated as a weapons grade setup.

Before this discussion goes further, it makes sense to find out exactly what LaRue have done in the way of testing and product engineering to ensure that this is not going to fail under operation. Leaving sufficient cost margin to replace faulty units is not how you treat critical application of technology. After all, how would you feel if you doctor said "We can give you cheap medical service, though one in ten life support systems fail... Don't worry, we can always give you a new one if you die from it." Warranties are worthless if your life is on the line and failure is imminent. I have a washing machine with a 7 year warranty and it's broken six times and the warranty is worthless to me. I don't care that they fix it every single time... I just want one that doesn't break.

Attributing foolishness to LaRue isn't my intent. They have some seriously great products and some fantastic engineering. This is an area of my personal interest and I look up to them as a leader in this space.

But over time, we've learned the hard way that some devices don't handle recoil so well. From Gen4 ( which found every recoil failure to be a nail in it's coffin ) to Pinnacles which don't handle the recoil so well either. we have learned the hard way that there be dragons in the recoil territory above 400G's. It's not enough to simply wack a tube in a housing and say "Sure, it will work just fine or we'll replace it."

Neither ITT nor Litton sell such a device. While I know it's possible to make a PVS-14 that will reliably handle such recoil from both a tube and housing perspective, it's not how a standard PVS-14 handles it with a modern tube. If LaRue are going to make such a product then I think they have two obigations. One is to rename the product so others don't confuse it with lesser PVS-14's - eg, call it a PVS-14B or maybe even a PVS-14L. The second is to justify what testing they have done so when this kit is used as a life-support device during a firefight, the fighters involved can have confidence they won't ever have to think about warranty.

At this point in time, they have done neither. Perhaps it's time to ask LaRue these questions instead of making assumptions, because I don't really know the status of their testing or product validation at this point.

And I'm all for a PVS-14 that can take higher recoil levels... So if LaRue can give a "recoil Guarantee" in G's, I'll happily modify all my tables to tell the world what cartridges they will handle.

Regards
David







Link Posted: 9/12/2011 6:42:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cj7hawk:
OK, this thread just cross the line from interesting to dangerous. It is one thing to start selling out-of-spec products. It is another entirely if people start to rely on them for life-or-death applications and though most of us sit on the safe side of shooting at things that don't shoot back, not all of us do and if you're going to treat your NV gear as life support equipment, you'd better be damn sure it is going to function as expected and when expected.

Going blind in a firefight is NOT a situation you ever want to be in. If you are a cop or a soldier looking on in interest at this thread, then you need to be careful about what weighting you put on the this topic. People are attributing all kinds of intent to this product without knowing what went in behind the scenes.

From the appearance of the advertising, it appears exactly as though this product is rated as a weapons grade setup.

Before this discussion goes further, it makes sense to find out exactly what LaRue have done in the way of testing and product engineering to ensure that this is not going to fail under operation. Leaving sufficient cost margin to replace faulty units is not how you treat critical application of technology. After all, how would you feel if you doctor said "We can give you cheap medical service, though one in ten life support systems fail... Don't worry, we can always give you a new one if you die from it." Warranties are worthless if your life is on the line and failure is imminent. I have a washing machine with a 7 year warranty and it's broken six times and the warranty is worthless to me. I don't care that they fix it every single time... I just want one that doesn't break.

Attributing foolishness to LaRue isn't my intent. They have some seriously great products and some fantastic engineering. This is an area of my personal interest and I look up to them as a leader in this space.

But over time, we've learned the hard way that some devices don't handle recoil so well. From Gen4 ( which found every recoil failure to be a nail in it's coffin ) to Pinnacles which don't handle the recoil so well either. we have learned the hard way that there be dragons in the recoil territory above 400G's. It's not enough to simply wack a tube in a housing and say "Sure, it will work just fine or we'll replace it."

Neither ITT nor Litton sell such a device. While I know it's possible to make a PVS-14 that will reliably handle such recoil from both a tube and housing perspective, it's not how a standard PVS-14 handles it with a modern tube. If LaRue are going to make such a product then I think they have two obigations. One is to rename the product so others don't confuse it with lesser PVS-14's - eg, call it a PVS-14B or maybe even a PVS-14L. The second is to justify what testing they have done so when this kit is used as a life-support device during a firefight, the fighters involved can have confidence they won't ever have to think about warranty.

At this point in time, they have done neither. Perhaps it's time to ask LaRue these questions instead of making assumptions, because I don't really know the status of their testing or product validation at this point.

And I'm all for a PVS-14 that can take higher recoil levels... So if LaRue can give a "recoil Guarantee" in G's, I'll happily modify all my tables to tell the world what cartridges they will handle.

Regards
David










+1
Link Posted: 9/12/2011 9:13:05 PM EDT

"At this point in time, they have done neither. Perhaps it's time to ask LaRue these questions instead of making assumptions, because I don't really know the status of their testing or product validation at this point."

I completely agree, David. The only reason I have offered to call them is because I want answers and have been known to politely push till I get them - but I am far from being one of the best people to ask the questions.

I also didn't think it was appropriate for me to sit back and wait for someone else to step up. I will gladly do any of the following:

  • Wait for set of questions provided by the SME's on here that I can use to call and ask LaRue for answers.
  • Step aside if one of the SME's is willing to call them and report back with answers.
  • Provide questions I would like LaRue to answer.

The only thing I bring to the table is free nationwide calling, the time to spend on the phone and experience with pushing vendors for answers.

I want answers for the same reasons (I think) that you do. Either LaRue is misrepresenting what they are selling - perhaps by accident ... or they have information that backs up the advertising they have not provided to the public that they should so a more informed decision can be made. It may be they have an agreement with a vendor that limits what they can say .. but that leads us back to "magic" products and I prefer test results.

Thoughts on a path forward?
Link Posted: 9/13/2011 8:45:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Barliman:

"At this point in time, they have done neither. Perhaps it's time to ask LaRue these questions instead of making assumptions, because I don't really know the status of their testing or product validation at this point."

I completely agree, David. The only reason I have offered to call them is because I want answers and have been known to politely push till I get them - but I am far from being one of the best people to ask the questions.

I also didn't think it was appropriate for me to sit back and wait for someone else to step up. I will gladly do any of the following:

  • Wait for set of questions provided by the SME's on here that I can use to call and ask LaRue for answers.
  • Step aside if one of the SME's is willing to call them and report back with answers.
  • Provide questions I would like LaRue to answer.

The only thing I bring to the table is free nationwide calling, the time to spend on the phone and experience with pushing vendors for answers.

I want answers for the same reasons (I think) that you do. Either LaRue is misrepresenting what they are selling - perhaps by accident ... or they have information that backs up the advertising they have not provided to the public that they should so a more informed decision can be made. It may be they have an agreement with a vendor that limits what they can say .. but that leads us back to "magic" products and I prefer test results.

Thoughts on a path forward?

Hi Barliman,

I'm not really sure it's our place to demand answers of LaRue. By all means, let them know of this thread and of our concerns and be it on their own heads if they continue down this path without acknowledging those concerns.

But other than to discuss this topic and our obligations to each other as a forum, I think anything more than asking LaRue what testing they have completed to ensure the resilience and reliability of their product and to suggest that they establish their own designation for the product is probably attributing moral authority to ourselves that we simply don't have, nor should we.

I'm not impressed with the way LaRue has gone about this exercise, but I'm not the NV-Police. My input on this matter is limited to criticism, same as the rest of us :).

Though I would love to know what they say about it if you ask them.

Regards
David.



Link Posted: 9/13/2011 9:40:22 PM EDT
Interesting, looks like the PVS-14's they previously had on their site were gone (used to be listed under new products).

I asked a while ago, when I was first looking into NV who made their stuff and this was their response:

"We sell the Sell Mark PVS 14, which are assembled with ITT components. I believe they are the Pinnacle Tubes."

That was back in May, not sure if the one pictured above (from Facebook) is different, but I'd sure like to find out. That they took the original product(the one linked to above) off of their site, seems to indicate they are somehow different in any case.

Let us know what they say!
Link Posted: 9/13/2011 10:01:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2011 7:25:24 PM EDT by Dino1130]
Originally Posted By BigfootHunter:
Interesting, looks like the PVS-14's they previously had on their site were gone (used to be listed under new products).

I asked a while ago, when I was first looking into NV who made their stuff and this was their response:

"We sell the Sell Mark PVS 14, which are assembled with ITT components. I believe they are the Pinnacle Tubes."

That was back in May, not sure if the one pictured above (from Facebook) is different, but I'd sure like to find out. That they took the original product(the one linked to above) off of their site, seems to indicate they are somehow different in any case.

Let us know what they say!


The only thing ITT about the SellMark scope they sold me may have been the housing. I can assure you the tube inside was straight up L3. Actually it was a AEO tube who uses L3 components to pot their own tubes. Did not really look hard but the housing could have been L3 as well. Basically this was the same scope TNVC regularly sells during the holiday as their Xmas special.

Decent scopes but not tier 1 and that is why they are sold much cheaper.

Link Posted: 9/20/2011 2:43:31 PM EDT

Well, it seems what was posted last week was premature. There is a new link I was just given this afternoon:

http://www.new.laruetactical.com/night-vision-device-pvs-14-auto-gated-and-lt755-14-qd-pivot-mount

These tubes are L3 (Dino was correct) and the PVS-14 is by Summit. The tube specs are:

Tube Technical Specifications
M814-CS001™ (P/N 245140-CS001)

  • Gen III photocathode which is very sensitive to low levels of visible and near-infrared light
  • Thin-filmed ion barrier to greatly extend Gen III I2 tube life versus Gen II tubes
  • U.S. manufactured Generation III image intensifier (I2) tube
  • One year warranty standard
  • The M814 image intensifier tube is L-3 EOS’ commercial version of MX-11769
  • This Image Intensifier is equivalent to U.S. Military configuration MX-11769.
  • Figure Of Merit (FOM) FOM = SNR X Resolution: Unlimited FOM Thin-filmed
  • Resolution (Lp/Mm ): 64 (Min)
  • Signal To Noise Ratio: 21.0 (Min)
  • HALO Mm: 1.0 (Max)
  • Photocathode Sensitivty 2856° K (Μa/Lm): 1800 (Min)
  • Photocathode Sensitivty At 830nm (Ma/W): 190 (Min)
  • EBI (X10-11 Phot): 2.5 (Max)
  • Luminance Gain @ 2x10-6fc (Fl/Fc): 40000 (Min) To 70000 (Max)
  • Luminance Gain @ 2x10-4fc (Fl/Fc): 10000 (Min) To 20000 (Max)
  • Output Brightness @ 1 And 20 Fc (Fl): 1.4 (Min) To 4.2 (Max)
  • Reliability (Hours): 10000
  • MTF @2.5 LP/MM: 92%
  • Mtf @7.5 LP/MM: 80%
  • Mtf @ 15 LP/MM: 61%
  • Mtf @25.0 LP/MM: 38%

  • and you can even find this picture:


    and if you have kept reading past the cj7hawk/Dino1130 pron

    I'll tell you that anybody who had actually ordered one last week would be really happy (by comparison, at least) cause the price shown now for the combo is $ 4,500 USD

    The 5 year manufacturer's warranty is gone. The warranty is 1 year. The site does still say the PVS-14's are hand selected and "These units are capable for weapon-mounting on up to 7.62 NATO rifles (like the LaRue OBR)."

    Maybe the additional $ 1,300 goes toward a custom PVS-14 body ??? But I doubt it - David, Dino?
    Link Posted: 9/20/2011 4:06:38 PM EDT
    Link Posted: 9/20/2011 4:07:03 PM EDT
    Maybe there have been enough recoil related failure returns that they have had to recalculate their actuary tables?
    Link Posted: 9/20/2011 4:08:34 PM EDT
    [Last Edit: 9/20/2011 7:34:23 PM EDT by Dino1130]
    Well, the tube pictured is a milspec tube. I can assure you that is not the tube you will find in a Summit scope. As far as modifying a PVS-14 housing to be sturdy enough for high recoil rifles I think you have a few issues. First off the PVS-14 housing is patented. Legally I don't think you can take a ITT or L3 design and rework it without expressed permission from them.

    To do something like this would cost major dollars for design and thorough testing. I am sure if this was done Larue would be mentioning all the testing that was done. I think Dean (not me) at Summit built some scopes and told Larue they will work on a .308 and if it breaks within a year he will warranty it. Just my guess with how it went down.

    All fine and good except for guys whose life depends on these scopes. Having the housing break and fly into someones face would not be fun. A Warranty is useless when a life could possibly be on the line. I don't shoot on a two way range but some people do and I bet they want to know what testing these scopes have and why they are considered "special"

    From what I see it is a run of the mill PVS-14 with a L3 tube that has high halo values. The tubes appear to be average with the specs listed. They are certainly no super tube by any stretch.
    Link Posted: 9/20/2011 4:47:56 PM EDT
    [Last Edit: 9/20/2011 4:58:45 PM EDT by Barliman]

    So where the heck is the other $ 1,300 in value? You can pick up the L3 PVS-14 for $ 3,000 and, if purchased separately, that mount is $ 179.

    If there is an order of mil-spec tubes canceled by the DoD, would L3 be able to sell them for commercial use?

    Just asking questions because LaRue has a good reputation and it seems unlikely they would go down this path to sell something at a premium that would generate bad PR.

    I was expecting a Halo number more like 1.25 given the statement about using it on their 7.62 OBR.


    ETA: I was just thinking ...
    If Vic does another Christmas deal, he could bundle his L3 PVS-14 and the TNVC mount like last year BUT add an option to get the M845 1.5X Gen2 SHP Red Dot Sight for a grand total of $ 4,500.

    Presuming Vic doesn't mind me messing with his business plan, marketing and margins ....
    Link Posted: 9/20/2011 5:08:16 PM EDT
    Originally Posted By Barliman:

    So where the heck is the other $ 1,300 in value? You can pick up the L3 PVS-14 for $ 3,000 and, if purchased separately, that mount is $ 179.

    If there is an order of mil-spec tubes canceled by the DoD, would L3 be able to sell them for commercial use?

    Just asking questions because LaRue has a good reputation and it seems unlikely they would go down this path to sell something at a premium that would generate bad PR.

    I was expecting a Halo number more like 1.25 given the statement about using it on their 7.62 OBR.


    ETA: I was just thinking ...
    If Vic does another Christmas deal, he could bundle his L3 PVS-14 and the TNVC mount like last year BUT add an option to get the M845 1.5X Gen2 SHP Red Dot Sight for a grand total of $ 4,500.

    Presuming Vic doesn't mind me messing with his business plan, marketing and margins ....


    Larue does have a good reputation. But, they know little about night vision and are just re-selling a vendor supplied scope. There is nothing Larue about this PVS-14. Larue did not design one single part of it except the mount. I think Larue is relying on bad info supplied by a smooth talking salesman. This salesman knows if you put a Larue stamp on it they will sell.

    Nothing against Larue at all. I just think the info being supplied by their vendor is not accurate at all. When you know little about a product you depend on accurate info from experts. In this case I think Larue is not being told the entire truth.

    Link Posted: 9/30/2011 7:04:26 PM EDT
    [Last Edit: 10/2/2011 2:34:56 PM EDT by Barliman]

    I am adding this link for anyone who reads through this thread and wonders about what the bottom line of this discussion turned out to be:

    http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_18/352794_PVS_14_s_on__308_s_or_Higher_.html

    If there are any further developments regarding this specific discussion, I will try to add those links.

    10/2/11: I've struck through the word specific above lest this and other possible additions get nitpicked. One of the keys questions in this thread has been with respect to warranty coverage of a tube being used on rifles above 5.56 caliber. I've added the link to a thread that discusses ITT's approach to warranty claims. If I find additional information regarding Litton's warranty approach, I will add it to this post.

    http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_209/209480_Can_we_talk_about_warranties_of_PVS_14_s_and_other_tid_bits_of_myths_.html

    Link Posted: 10/2/2011 2:48:41 PM EDT
    http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_219/209453_PVS_14_Safe_for_Use_on_a_7_62mm_Rifle____Contradictions.html

    Well, we got a response to the PVS-14 debacle. Not what I would of liked to hear but a response none the less. The difference between a supplier warranty and a manufacturers warranty should be clearly stated. Both ITT and L3 say the PVS-14 has not been tested on a .308 platform. Proper testing in a lab costs hundreds of thousands.

    Sending a few guys in a field to fire off a box or two of rounds is not testing in my book. By the way they all get the housing from the same people. Insight makes the PVS-14 housing and they are owned by L3 who says putting it on a .308 is a no no. Everybody gets the housing from the same place ! Slight cosmetic differences due to how a certain company wants theirs to look but the mold and design is the same.

    Larue PVS-14 ? Yep, it has a Insight housing just like everyone else gets. Any dealer can find a tube to withstand the recoil. But, they ALL still have to use the SAME housing. Ever see a rifle scope mounted on a .308 made of plastic? Better yet ever see the attachment point as a Heli-coil epoxied or threaded into plastic. Does not take an engineer to see this is a bad idea. I just hope nobody gets hurt.
    Link Posted: 10/2/2011 8:30:27 PM EDT

    Originally Posted By Dino1130:
    http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_219/209453_PVS_14_Safe_for_Use_on_a_7_62mm_Rifle____Contradictions.html

    Well, we got a response to the PVS-14 debacle. Not what I would of liked to hear but a response none the less. The difference between a supplier warranty and a manufacturers warranty should be clearly stated. Both ITT and L3 say the PVS-14 has not been tested on a .308 platform. Proper testing in a lab costs hundreds of thousands.

    Sending a few guys in a field to fire off a box or two of rounds is not testing in my book. By the way they all get the housing from the same people. Insight makes the PVS-14 housing and they are owned by L3 who says putting it on a .308 is a no no. Everybody gets the housing from the same place ! Slight cosmetic differences due to how a certain company wants theirs to look but the mold and design is the same.

    Larue PVS-14 ? Yep, it has a Insight housing just like everyone else gets. Any dealer can find a tube to withstand the recoil. But, they ALL still have to use the SAME housing. Ever see a rifle scope mounted on a .308 made of plastic? Better yet ever see the attachment point as a Heli-coil epoxied or threaded into plastic. Does not take an engineer to see this is a bad idea. I just hope nobody gets hurt.

    I didn't have time this weekend to make a short video showing recoil on my FNAR compared to the recoil on my 6940. I want to add that video to make clear to the casual reader the difference between the two calibers ... because the more I considered your earlier post in this regard, the more I agree with your point about safety in these circumstances. Another week gives me time to think of ways of demonstrating the different levels of force involved.

    The open question I asked regarding the $ 1,300 premium over the L3 PVS-14's widely available at $ 3,000 still stands.

    The $ 1,300 premium is 43% of the open market cost for the PVS-14 - based on actual usage estimates (i.e. the average PVS-14 will spend most of its time in a safe rather than being submitted to 308 mag dumps) this could prove a fairly lucrative undertaking for anyone willing to act as an agent for a class insurance policy.

    Want to make some fast money anyone?

    A class insurance policy would be negotiated with one of the larger insurers (no, not Lloyds - they would steal the idea) to cover 1,000 PVS-14's. The insurance company actuaries would put together the stats and quote you a price with a deductible you would cover before making any claims. You would cover your deductible by buying 1,000 PVS-14's but only selling 750 of them. If you can buy 1,000 PVs-14's for $ 2,500/each but sell the 750 for $ 4,300/each. Your out-of-pocket cost is $ 2,500,000. Your gross revenue is $ 3,225,000. You gross profit is $ 725,000.

    Your deal with the insurance company is your deductible is that you will replace the first 250 units returned under warranty during the first year - but you already have those units on hand for negligible additional costs to you. If during the one year warranty period, the units returned exceed 250, the insurance company will cover your cost to order replacement units. They've looked at the statistics and estimate their risk to be an additional 40 units that would require payment to you or $ 100,000. The insurance company charges you $ 125,000 which will leave them with a gross margin of $ 25,000 - at worst case according to their actuaries - if there are no claims, they come out $ 125,000 to the good side.

    Your situation is all to the good unless more than 290 units fail under their one year warranty. If you have done enough field testing to know the average number of rounds before a failure occurs and you are willing to take the risk that 460 ( 61% of the 750) of the units will only see 25% of those rounds during the first year after sale, then you are "insured" on 39% of the guns and are looking at a gross profit of $ 600,000.

    Not too bad!

    This is really long post so I'll leave to another time the additional gross profit opportunity available by watching the actual claim rate and determining how many of the 250 held in reserve you could sell for $ 3,000 of additional gross profit each you could realize by selling them as the "standard" L3 PVS-14's


    Link Posted: 10/2/2011 8:50:52 PM EDT
    [Last Edit: 10/2/2011 9:32:41 PM EDT by Dino1130]
    You know from a hunter stand point I almost don't care that they are selling this with extra profit margin in place to cover units that WILL be lost. That is not really the issue for me at all. Any dealer could do the same thing as Larue is doing. I respect the fact TNVC won't do this until L3 or ITT says it can handle a .308. The reason I am against it is purely safety.

    I don't want to see someone hurt or even a worse outcome. This is a horrible idea and I have lost some respect. When the Engineers and the guys who designed the scope from the ground up tell you not to do something it usually is for good reason. L3 or ITT would have sold these long ago as a factory option for a .308 if they thought it would hold up. It won't and they know it won't !

    Sales is one thing but when you put someones life on the line it pisses me off. For me ? If it breaks I buy a new housing and fix it. For LE/Mil this scope could cost their life. Totally unacceptable and if any one of them wish to discuss it here in the night vision forum myself and I am sure MANY others would be more then happy to oblige.

    I don't blame Larue as much as the supplier who is feeding them this crap that could get someone hurt or killed. Having a PVS-14 fly into your face could make for a bad outcome . As I have said before you need no degree in engineering to see this for yourself. Just look at your PVS-14. I would never put mine on a .308.
    Link Posted: 10/4/2011 4:49:35 AM EDT
    I'm new to the NV world and have been doing research on which device to purchase. I've read through this thread and the one thing I want to understand is is there a difference to the amount of "G" force from a bolt action 308 and an AR 308. Logic would tell me yes because of the buffer tube design af the AR platform. If my assumption is correct then what is the difference in that felt recoil and is it still within the limits of the product?

    I have an OBR and several AR's so my preference is to have a PVS 14 that can function for both calibers.

    Can you all offer any thoughts and maybe point me toward an acceptable product? I've considered a PVS 22 but size is the issue here, as well as cost. The 24 is an option but I'm running a 3.5-15 x 50 Nightforce on the OBR and this is a no no as the 24 is only meant for 4 to 6X.

    Thanks in advance for any guidance.
    Link Posted: 10/4/2011 5:13:23 AM EDT
    Originally Posted By tbd1966:
    I'm new to the NV world and have been doing research on which device to purchase. I've read through this thread and the one thing I want to understand is is there a difference to the amount of "G" force from a bolt action 308 and an AR 308. Logic would tell me yes because of the buffer tube design af the AR platform. If my assumption is correct then what is the difference in that felt recoil and is it still within the limits of the product?

    I have an OBR and several AR's so my preference is to have a PVS 14 that can function for both calibers.

    Can you all offer any thoughts and maybe point me toward an acceptable product? I've considered a PVS 22 but size is the issue here, as well as cost. The 24 is an option but I'm running a 3.5-15 x 50 Nightforce on the OBR and this is a no no as the 24 is only meant for 4 to 6X.

    Thanks in advance for any guidance.


    Considering that your NXS in conjunction with a PVS-22/27 would weigh like 5+ pounds, a dedicated NV riflescope to compliment your NXS, both on high quality QD mounts, would seem a good way to go.

    How far do you really plan to shoot in the dark? 4x mag is surprisingly effective out to 300y on reasonably sized targets....8" is a 2.6 MOA shot at that range. Doping a sigle device for multiple platforms is a real PITA favoring a clip-on, but as an example, one can purchase TWO D-740s with recoil-tolerant L3 tubes for roughly the same cost of a 22/27.

    Top Top