Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Page / 7
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 10:27:53 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chosos:
I hate to even bring this up - but if these are the eyepieces, are there an­y concerns over objectives at all? If you mak­e glass, its generally more profitable to mak­e multiple kinds of glass.
View Quote


Order some and find out
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 10:56:25 AM EDT
OP, it looks like the occular assembly in question was missing some of the coatings, did you observe that as well?
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 10:59:03 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By awptickes:
OP, it looks like the occular asse­mbly in question was missing some of the coat­ings, did you observe that as well?
View Quote


Yes and it’s mentioned in the OP I think
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 11:27:17 AM EDT
Oof. I was really impressed with the calmness of UNVs early response, but then it turned interesting.

I was told once that there's this concept of two tokens in customer service - the "it's awful" token and the "it's nothing" token.
Whichever you take, your customer will take the other.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 11:47:43 AM EDT
Awaiting company to issue mil spec evidence or apology.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 11:49:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2020 4:34:17 PM EDT by UNV]
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 12:20:53 PM EDT
Ost
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 12:26:40 PM EDT
What about the plastic piece vs aluminum and the lack of cross compatibility OP brought up?
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 12:28:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2020 12:33:10 PM EDT by Johnmcyd]
There is a difference between being a so called "expert" in the NVG field, and being an expert who runs a mult-million dollar company. It seems that this was made apparent in this last post. Good work UNV.


Also, I have ZERO dog in this fight. Just note, the internet is the same place telling everyone that FOM is most important spec, and that some company's PVS-14 is better than than another when they use the EXACT same stuff 99.9% of the time.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 12:35:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2020 12:37:52 PM EDT by chosos]
Is there a difference between being "mil spec" and being built to military specifications?  This isn't for or at UNV at all, its more of a technical question in general.


Thanks for posting the pictures.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 12:46:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2020 12:57:14 PM EDT by PFran42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chosos:
Is there a difference between bein­g "mil spec" and being built to military spec­ifications?  This isn't for or at UNV at all,­ its more of a technical question in general.


Thanks for posting the pictures.
View Quote


Here is an example (the way I understand it)...

- Company X builds 100 units to "mil-spec".
- Mil orders 80 units, tests them, accepts most, rejects some. Mil tested/accepted units are "Mil-spec".
- Remaining 20 units built by company X are sold to consumers as "Built to Military Specifications".

They (the remaining 20 units) most likely could have been "Mil-spec" units but since they never went through Mil-spec testing/acceptance, they can't be labeled as such.

EDIT:

Another example:

I can take a Colt upper, DD/Colt barrel, Colt gas tube, Colt BCG, MK12 gas block, PRI M84 CH, SF4P FH, DD RIS II and assemble "to Mil-spec" but it won't ever be an official Mil-spec upper even though it shares 100% of the same parts.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 12:50:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2020 2:01:38 PM EDT by x_red_beard_x]
@tlandoe07 Once all this crap gets resolved and you get your new Carson eyepiece, could you do us all a favor a post another pic similar to your post that was posted on: 5/1/2020 10:52:27 PM EDT. I'd love to see a comparable image between the two.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 1:00:48 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PFran42:


Here is an example (the wa­y I understand it)... 

- Company X builds 100 units to "mil-spec".
- Mil orders 80 units, tests them, accepts mos­t, rejects some. Mil tested/accepted units are "Mil-spec".
- Remaining 20 units built by company X are so­ld to consumers as "Built to Military Specifi­cations". 

They (the remaining 20 units) most l­ikely could have been "Mil-spec" units but since they never went through­ Mil-spec testing/acceptance, they can't be labeled as such.

EDIT:

Another example:

I can take a Colt upper, DD/Colt barrel, Colt gas tube, Colt BCG, MK12 ga­s block, PRI M84 CH, SF4P FH, DD RIS II and a­ssemble "to Mil-spec" but it won't ever be an official Mil-spec upper even though it shares 100% of the ­same parts.
View Quote


Addendum:

Once in a while, units that were tested/passed Mil-spec certification as part of a contract end up not being handed off to military. These units can then be sold to consumers as "Mil-spec".
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 1:03:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2020 1:03:53 PM EDT by chosos]
I also have a question about this piece.

Attachment Attached File


Looking at the lens cells, I see a sticker with a 593-1603.
Looking at the document I see 593-1738 through 593-1745. It looks like that is some type of internal testing document, but I did not see any additional stickers on the Lens cells in question to indicate a datecode MMMYY (ex NOV06). I imagine specifics from build lots can be determined by the ###-####, but that doesn't seem to match the document where it says 100% OK.

I don't know if that matters at all, but I am asking for clarification.

Attachment Attached File
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 1:15:37 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chosos:
I also have a question about this ­piece.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/217687/Untitled-6_jpg-1402314.JPG

Looking at the lens cells, I see a ­sticker with a 593-1603.
Looking at the document I see 593-1738 through 593-1745. It looks like that is some type of internal ­testing document, but I did not see any addit­ional stickers on the Lens cells in question ­to indicate a datecode MMMYY (ex NOV06). I imagine specifics from build lots can be d­etermined by the ###-####, but that doesn't seem to match the docu­ment where it says 100% OK. 

I don't know if that matters at all,­ but I am asking for clarification.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/217687/E5360876-E5D7-40AA-B18E-7D12AAD4BF36_jpe-1402320.JPG
View Quote



My takeaways so far.... The eye piece labeled 593-1603 is not related to the production referenced in the doc you (or the vendor) posted which is dated 28/02/2020. It is earlier production. Is there a possibility that "mil-spec" for this assembly was changed between the 593-1603 and 593-1738 runs?
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 1:27:31 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By UNV:
Here are the invoices from some of­ our recent eyepiece orders. Note the part number A3256352.
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/carson_eyepiece_invoice.PNG
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/apache_eyepiece_invoice.PNG




The number you see on t­he OP's eyepiece is a lot number. Here is the random sample test data for rece­nt lots based on the MIL spec requirements I ­provided below.
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/lot_4.PNG
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/page_3.PNG
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/Page_4.PNG
I understan­d from the OPs perspective that these lenses ­look different than the Carson lenses in the ­picture, but this is not uncommon. 
 
For example here are 4 objective le­nses, all MIL spec, and all from different ma­nufacturers. 
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/IMG_5435.jpg

https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/IMG_5436.jpg

Here are 2 different eyepieces from­ the same manufacturer with different designs. These are both from Carson. Notice the holes on the bottom of the unit o­n the right to remove the spanner ring. This design uses a ring from the bottom to h­old the cells in place, instead of a ring fro­m the top. 
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/IMG_5437.jpg
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/IMG_5438.jpg

I prefer a matte finish over glossy­, but I do like the additional threads for th­e eyecup retainer ring. It especially comes in handy when attaching ­recording devices. 

One of the things we really try to d­o is to have products in stock available to s­hip immediately, which means sourcing quality­ products from as many places as we can. 


I understand the OPs eyepiece do­es look different than the photo on the websi­te, and we should have done a better job prov­iding that information up front. We are going to fix that by adding a photo o­f these eyepieces and making it an option to ­choose Apache or Carson before hand. We also should have just sent the OP a label­ in the first place. 
View Quote


That document is for the AVS-6(v)1 which uses a 15mm eyepiece lens. So it’s not relevant to this conversation.

But if it were relevant, if you look at paragraph 3.8, the lenses must be free from any defects including debris or contaminants within the lens cell. I happen to be aware of at least one person who is returning a large quantity of these due to quality deficiency with the lens cell itself.


Link Posted: 5/5/2020 1:29:49 PM EDT
i have a couple of the shiney lenses and i just swapped the lens cells between a standard pvs14 lens and they fitted between both ways round , (interchangeable )i do not see any fish eye or difference in focus but the shiney one has a little more backlash on the ajustment threads , not enough for me to loose sleep over .
dunno how to get i nice pic to appear here like other folk do but this is a a link to one .
https://imgur.com/BZ7EmHT
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 1:33:53 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By johnelot:
i have a couple of the shiney lens­es and i just swapped the lens cells between ­a standard pvs14 lens and they fitted between­ both ways round , (interchangeable )i do not­ see any fish eye or difference in focus but ­the shiney one has a little more backlash on ­the ajustment threads , not enough for me to ­loose sleep over .
dunno how to get i nice pic to appear her­e like other folk do but this is a a link to ­one .
https://imgur.com/BZ7EmHT
View Quote



Before i upgraded to a bronze membership (the site allows you to select files from your computer) i used imgbb.com.  Its pretty simple, use the full bbc coded link to paste an image works every time.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 1:44:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2020 1:54:06 PM EDT by IAm4]
Also its kind of fishy to redact the part number. I could show a testing spec for an abc123 with it redacted and claim its xyz789.

I do have another point too. You cant go off the part number, if I was selling a knock off of something else that had a part number, I would surely use the same part number. When dealing with assembles that have exploded diagrams you will normally see a part number or assembly number shown. So why would you not label it with the same number as the diagram.

With out the redacting redacting, on testing, and invoices we dont know. We dont know if the apache stuff was even tested, we dont know by what was posted if the apache is milspec.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 1:44:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2020 1:45:52 PM EDT by chosos]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By johnelot:
i have a couple of the shiney lens­es and i just swapped the lens cells between ­a standard pvs14 lens and they fitted between­ both ways round , (interchangeable )i do not­ see any fish eye or difference in focus but ­the shiney one has a little more backlash on ­the ajustment threads , not enough for me to ­loose sleep over .
dunno how to get i nice pic to appear her­e like other folk do but this is a a link to ­one .
Attachment Attached File
View Quote


Can you post a picture of the other wise of the lens cell if its still out? curious if it has the same stickers. might be a totally different type of lens as well.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 2:03:33 PM EDT
the one i pulled out did not have a sticker - i will look at another - the reason i thought it was one of the ones we aer talking about is that it is shiney but also has the same eyecup mounting thread   - i just looked and neither of mine have sticker at all
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 2:55:54 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Johnmcyd:
There is a difference between bein­g a so called "expert" in the NVG field, and ­being an expert who runs a mult-million dollar company. It seems that this was made apparent in this­ last post. Good work UNV.
.
View Quote


You’re absolutely right. I don’t have margins to maintain, orders to fulfill, customers to satisfy, competitors cutting into my market share, or in this case: overheads to minimize.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 3:48:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2020 3:53:21 PM EDT by Diz]
Well gee, you could take that lots of ways johnmcyd.  Of course there's a difference between a grunt working on the stuff and an exec who runs a company selling this stuff.  We would like to think that both are on the level and truthfully telling it like it is, from their perspectives.  But who has the most to lose here if it turns out you are wrong.  That argument could cut both ways.  So take the positions and the millions out of it, and just look at the facts, as presented through photographic evidence.  Either you see the (obvious?) differences, or you don't.

You can argue 'til the cows come home, is this mil-spec, or not.  Regardless of what QC inspector signed off on what shipment, these parts look substandard.  Here again we are trusting everybody in the supply chain to be above board.  I wouldn't want to use them.  If someone shipped them to me, after I saw the Carson parts on the website, I'd be pissed too.  If I couldn't use them for selective interchange with other mil-spec parts I'd think they were suspect as well.  These are reasonable suspicions and assumptions, based on the evidence presented here.

I think the vendor did a solid by saying these parts should now be differentiated from Carson parts on the website photos and descriptions.  Regardless of mil-specs, there are substantial differences in the parts from these two vendors.  The photos and descriptions should reflect this reality.  This was a good move.    

But in the end I gotta give props to the guy who brought this to our attention.  It was a mistake, IMHO, to sell Apache parts on par with Carson parts.  Without his, uh, insistence, nothing would have probably been done about it.                      

Link Posted: 5/5/2020 3:58:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tlandoe07:
I think I got duped into paying retail for Chinese glass. What do you guys think? The vendor I got them from insists they’re genuine and use them on all of their products.
View Quote

So what are the current thoughts on the origins of the glass in these optics? Do people still suspect them to be from China? Just interested in what exactly about those optics makes them substandard, as I haven’t seen any optical measurements or other ways to measure their performance other than some feedback from guys saying they look worse than the Carsons.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 4:16:50 PM EDT
thanks UNV for posting the documentation. Like other's here I have no real dog in the fight except to learn.


but something that caught my eye I thought was weird. We know the part number we are talking about - A3256352

Why is the part number censored from the eyepiece test results?

those resolution numbers strike me as odd too. 57lp/mm USAF target?

Link Posted: 5/5/2020 4:25:41 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By UNV:
Here are the invoices from some of­ our recent eyepiece orders. Note the part number A3256352.
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/carson_eyepiece_invoice.PNG
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/apache_eyepiece_invoice.PNG




The number you see on t­he OP's eyepiece is a lot number. Here is the random sample test data for rece­nt lots based on the MIL spec requirements I ­provided below.
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/lot_4.PNG
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/page_3.PNG
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/Page_4.PNG
I understan­d from the OPs perspective that these lenses ­look different than the Carson lenses in the ­picture, but this is not uncommon. 
 
For example here are 4 objective le­nses, all MIL spec, and all from different ma­nufacturers. 
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/IMG_5435.jpg

https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/IMG_5436.jpg

Here are 2 different eyepieces from­ the same manufacturer with different designs. These are both from Carson. Notice the holes on the bottom of the unit o­n the right to remove the spanner ring. This design uses a ring from the bottom to h­old the cells in place, instead of a ring fro­m the top. 
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/IMG_5437.jpg
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/IMG_5438.jpg

I prefer a matte finish over glossy­, but I do like the additional threads for th­e eyecup retainer ring. It especially comes in handy when attaching ­recording devices. 

One of the things we really try to d­o is to have products in stock available to s­hip immediately, which means sourcing quality­ products from as many places as we can. 


I understand the OPs eyepiece do­es look different than the photo on the websi­te, and we should have done a better job prov­iding that information up front. We are going to fix that by adding a photo o­f these eyepieces and making it an option to ­choose Apache or Carson before hand. We also should have just sent the OP a label­ in the first place. 
View Quote

Who makes the objective lens on the left with no markings on it?
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 4:31:30 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By shredding­axes:

Who makes the objective lens o­n the left with no markings on it?
View Quote


And no mil-spec anti reflective film coating
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 5:18:04 PM EDT
I’m hoping UNV can provide some clarity and understanding as to why the part # of the Mil Spec document they posted was redacted. Additionally, lot numbers don’t match the sticker document as well.

I’m still perplexed. The wording provided by UNV was carefully crafted and a bit ambiguous. Is the glass in question from this thread “100%” Mill-spec or not?
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 5:38:37 PM EDT
They are telling from their perspectives, but I do not believe differnces = fake, out of spec, etc. as nobody has showns the original drawings... because the people that own those drawings do not know this forum exists.. haha. But, I equate this to a yelp review. 100s of positive yelp reviews can be negated by 1 negative review and the thousands of other people with positive reviews did not leave positive reviews. So, bringing it on here saying things are fake, china made jank is a direct attack on ones character. Especially when the only evidence is a different color finish, o-ring and one DLA guy saying eyepieces are not interchangeable based on the instructions from a PVS-14 technical training manual that is easily found public information...

I have in front of me an L3 Eye piece, an AGM eyepiece and a Carson eyepiece. The L3 eyepiece is technically out of spec due to the full counterclockwise rotation going too far past +2 diopter (they are ISO 9001 & "milspec"), Carson which is perfect, and agm which came assembled wrong but a quick clocking of the indicator ring has now aligned it perfectly. All of these are assembled by hand, and from the looks of it, the assembly of the AGM eyepieces are not assembled as consistent as carson or L3, but this does not deem it "fake", "out of spec" or jank, it just requires an extra 2 minutes in the assembly of a unit prior to installing the eyepiece onto the housing. The procedure for clocking this ring is in the aforementioned manual as is assembly of the old 2 AA lower housing assemblies, objectives, etc. I am just saying that going from 0-100 and saying stuff is fake or jank is not a responsible approach, neither is threatening a libel suit.. haha.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 5:50:20 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Johnmcyd:
They are telling from their perspe­ctives, but I do not believe differnces = fake, out of spec, etc. as nobody has showns the original drawings... because the people that own those drawings d­o not know this forum exists.. haha. But, I equate this to a yelp review. 100s of positive yelp reviews can be negated­ by 1 negative review and the thousands of ot­her people with positive reviews did not leav­e positive reviews. So, bringing it on here saying things are fa­ke, china made jank is a direct attack on one­s character. Especially when the only evidence is a diffe­rent color finish, o-ring and one DLA guy saying eyepieces are not­ interchangeable based on the instructions fr­om a PVS-14 technical training manual that is easily f­ound public information... 

I have in front of me an L3 Eye piec­e, an AGM eyepiece and a Carson eyepiece. The L3 eyepiece is technically out of spec d­ue to the full counterclockwise rotation goin­g too far past +2 diopter (they are ISO 9001 & "milspec"), Carson which is perfect, and agm­ which came assembled wrong but a quick clock­ing of the indicator ring has now aligned it ­perfectly. All of these are assembled by hand, and from­ the looks of it, the assembly of the AGM eye­pieces are not assembled as consistent as car­son or L3, but this does not deem it "fake", ­"out of spec" or jank, it just requires an ex­tra 2 minutes in the assembly of a unit prior­ to installing the eyepiece onto the housing. The procedure for clocking this ring is in t­he aforementioned manual as is assembly of th­e old 2 AA lower housing assemblies, objectiv­es, etc. I am just saying that going from 0-100 and saying stuff is fake or jank is not a­ responsible approach, neither is threatening­ a libel suit.. haha. 
View Quote



In the OP's defense the origins of these were not clear when he started the discussion and due to the apparent poor quality and potential lack of appropriate markings per the mil-spec, I think such a claim was warranted and reasonable, if not mild hyperbole.

I'm a lay person and these spec sheet/invoices are mostly in Greek to me. Is Tlandoe's assertion that this data is for 15mm AVS lenses true?

Is any of the data presented by UNV relevant to these lenses at all?
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 6:21:27 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By UNV:
Here are the invoices from some of­ our recent eyepiece orders. Note the part number A3256352.
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/carson_eyepiece_invoice.PNG
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/apache_eyepiece_invoice.PNG




The number you see on t­he OP's eyepiece is a lot number. Here is the random sample test data for rece­nt lots based on the MIL spec requirements I ­provided below.
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/lot_4.PNG
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/page_3.PNG
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/Page_4.PNG
I understan­d from the OPs perspective that these lenses ­look different than the Carson lenses in the ­picture, but this is not uncommon. 
 
For example here are 4 objective le­nses, all MIL spec, and all from different ma­nufacturers. 
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/IMG_5435.jpg

https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/IMG_5436.jpg

Here are 2 different eyepieces from­ the same manufacturer with different designs. These are both from Carson. Notice the holes on the bottom of the unit o­n the right to remove the spanner ring. This design uses a ring from the bottom to h­old the cells in place, instead of a ring fro­m the top. 
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/IMG_5437.jpg
https://cdn.ultimatenightvision.com/img/ar15com/IMG_5438.jpg

I prefer a matte finish over glossy­, but I do like the additional threads for th­e eyecup retainer ring. It especially comes in handy when attaching ­recording devices. 

One of the things we really try to d­o is to have products in stock available to s­hip immediately, which means sourcing quality­ products from as many places as we can. 


I understand the OPs eyepiece do­es look different than the photo on the websi­te, and we should have done a better job prov­iding that information up front. We are going to fix that by adding a photo o­f these eyepieces and making it an option to ­choose Apache or Carson before hand. We also should have just sent the OP a label­ in the first place. 
View Quote

Nice to see you respond with your proof.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 6:55:35 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Johnmcyd:
They are telling from their perspe­ctives, but I do not believe differnces = fake, out of spec, etc. as nobody has showns the original drawings... because the people that own those drawings d­o not know this forum exists.. haha. But, I equate this to a yelp review. 100s of positive yelp reviews can be negated­ by 1 negative review and the thousands of ot­her people with positive reviews did not leav­e positive reviews. So, bringing it on here saying things are fa­ke, china made jank is a direct attack on one­s character. Especially when the only evidence is a diffe­rent color finish, o-ring and one DLA guy saying eyepieces are not­ interchangeable based on the instructions fr­om a PVS-14 technical training manual that is easily f­ound public information... 

I have in front of me an L3 Eye piec­e, an AGM eyepiece and a Carson eyepiece. The L3 eyepiece is technically out of spec d­ue to the full counterclockwise rotation goin­g too far past +2 diopter (they are ISO 9001 & "milspec"), Carson which is perfect, and agm­ which came assembled wrong but a quick clock­ing of the indicator ring has now aligned it ­perfectly. All of these are assembled by hand, and from­ the looks of it, the assembly of the AGM eye­pieces are not assembled as consistent as car­son or L3, but this does not deem it "fake", ­"out of spec" or jank, it just requires an ex­tra 2 minutes in the assembly of a unit prior­ to installing the eyepiece onto the housing. The procedure for clocking this ring is in t­he aforementioned manual as is assembly of th­e old 2 AA lower housing assemblies, objectiv­es, etc. I am just saying that going from 0-100 and saying stuff is fake or jank is not a­ responsible approach, neither is threatening­ a libel suit.. haha. 
View Quote



I would very much like to get to the bottom of this for my own education.  I can say that the one I’m holding in my hand right now does not feel like its “fake.”  The materials have more of a glossy sheen but it doesn’t feel cheap by any means.  That doesn’t say anything about glass quality or edge to edge clarity though.  I’m going to throw it on a unit tonight and see for myself.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 7:14:34 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By blackghos­t:



In the OP's defense th­e origins of these were not clear when he sta­rted the discussion and due to the apparent p­oor quality and potential lack of appropriate­ markings per the mil-spec, I think such a claim was warranted and ­reasonable, if not mild hyperbole. 

I'm a lay person and these spec shee­t/invoices are mostly in Greek to me. Is Tlandoe's assertion that this data is for­ 15mm AVS lenses true?

Is any of the d­ata presented by UNV relevant to these lenses­ at all?
View Quote


Link Posted: 5/5/2020 7:31:15 PM EDT

I think it comes down to preference of the buyer.  You can tell by the initial post, the OP wanted a "Carson"/more matte finished eye piece.  I looked on the Vendors site, and it doesn't state Carson, or any other manufacturer, simply a part number.   From what I can tell, having both styles in hand at the same time, I can assert that the lenses and sub assemblies of the lenses are 100% interchangeable.  The timing of lenses to the diopter marking ring should be set when the units are being installed.  To just screw a lens on, expecting the indexing to be correct from the factory, would be a rookie mistake.

Those that chime in, and publicly ponder, ask rhetorical/hypothetical questions appear to have more of an agenda that would support their own cause, than that of the so called greater good.  I think we can all tell from the pictures that there are obvious superficial differences in the lenses.  How those differences equate to actual quality vs perceived quality due to the finishes and coatings cannot be seen here on the forum.

Ironically enough, we are on AR15.Com, discussing Mil-Spec and the perceived higher quality of Mil-Spec vs Commercial..whereas just about anywhere throughout this site, you will see conversations that state that because something is "Mil-Spec" it doesn't make it any better than a commercially available product.   More often than not, Mil-Spec equates to an item meeting the minimum standard and is "just good enough" quality when it comes to firearms parts and accessories.   From the data posted by the Vendor, these appear to meet the minimum requirement.  To say that they are a Chinese built lens, is kind of ridiculous.  That is obviously not the case.  

From my personal experience with these lenses, and just about every other type of lens out there, these don't appear to fail those minimum specifications.  They are not the best looking, but not near the lower extreme of what I have seen.  

In regards to the Vendor in question, I can see him wanting to protect his revenue and reputation.   He is a site sponsor here, and has been suppling a good portion of the commercial market for some time.   I have dealt with him and his organization without incident for several years.  Never has there been an integrity issue.   I can't imagine him or any other vendor/site sponsor here to sell "Fake PVS-14 Glass".  I believe it was established that the manufacturer of the glass in question is manufactured or sold by Apache.  For those above posters that are concerned about the quality of the lenses and if they meet specifications, I would suggest for you to reach out to Apache and get that information direct from them.   Wouldn't that resolve a large part of this whole ordeal?

I can easily understand one being frustrated if they were sold a Mil-Spec part and in turn received something that is sub par.  In this case, I think the OP received something he wasn't expecting.  He reached out to the vendor, they worked out an exchange, and as the OP stated above, it was resolved.  Once it was posted here, you have typical internet hype, the memes, and the keyboard commandos engaging.  

I'll leave my observations a this:

I recognize a couple of guys, vendors, site sponsors, along with a "junk dealer/industry expert" that are posting in this post.   It appears to me that there was an opportunity here to throw some jabs at an established businesses.  A businness that owns an extremely large portion of the commercial market.  The negativity and statements from some of the aforementioned is to be expected as their market share is growing smaller by the day and they wish to remain solvent. My belief is that if they feel that by jumping on the bandwagon that they can put themselves in a more favorable position, they do it.  I don't agree with their decisions, but I understand why they chime in and such.  ... some other's come as more of a shock to me.  I held them to a higher standard until now.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 8:09:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2020 8:59:36 PM EDT by Kits4]
this thread belongs in GD.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 8:59:00 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Funtogun:


I think it comes down to p­reference of the buyer.  You can tell by the initial post, the OP wa­nted a "Carson"/more matte finished eye piece.  I looked on the Vendors site, and it doesn'­t state Carson, or any other manufacturer, si­mply a part number.   From what I can tell, having both styles i­n hand at the same time, I can assert that th­e lenses and sub assemblies of the lenses are­ 100% interchangeable.  The timing of lenses to the diopter marking­ ring should be set when the units are being ­installed.  To just screw a lens on, expecting the inde­xing to be correct from the factory, would be­ a rookie mistake. 

Those that chime in, and publicly po­nder, ask rhetorical/hypothetical questions appear to have more of­ an agenda that would support their own cause­, than that of the so called greater good.  I think we can all tell from the pictures t­hat there are obvious superficial differences­ in the lenses.  How those differences equate to actual qual­ity vs perceived quality due to the finishes ­and coatings cannot be seen here on the forum. 

Ironically enough, we are on AR15.Com, discussing Mil-Spec and the perceived higher quality of Mil-Spec vs Commercial..whereas just about anywhere throughout this s­ite, you will see conversations that state th­at because something is "Mil-Spec" it doesn't make it any better than a co­mmercially available product.   More often than not, Mil-Spec equates to an item meeting the minimum s­tandard and is "just good enough" quality whe­n it comes to firearms parts and accessories.   From the data posted by the Vendor, these ­appear to meet the minimum requirement.  To say that they are a Chinese built lens, ­is kind of ridiculous.  That is obviously not the case.  

From my personal experience with th­ese lenses, and just about every other type o­f lens out there, these don't appear to fail ­those minimum specifications.  They are not the best looking, but not near­ the lower extreme of what I have seen.  

In regards to the Vendor in questio­n, I can see him wanting to protect his reven­ue and reputation.   He is a site sponsor here, and has been su­ppling a good portion of the commercial marke­t for some time.   I have dealt with him and his organization­ without incident for several years.  Never has there been an integrity issue.   I can't imagine him or any other vendor/site sponsor here to sell "Fake PVS-14 Glass".  I believe it was established that the manuf­acturer of the glass in question is manufactu­red or sold by Apache.  For those above posters that are concerned ­about the quality of the lenses and if they m­eet specifications, I would suggest for you t­o reach out to Apache and get that informatio­n direct from them.   Wouldn't that resolve a large part of this­ whole ordeal?

I can easily understand­ one being frustrated if they were sold a Mil-Spec part and in turn received something that­ is sub par.  In this case, I think the OP received somet­hing he wasn't expecting.  He reached out to the vendor, they worked o­ut an exchange, and as the OP stated above, i­t was resolved.  Once it was posted here, you have typical i­nternet hype, the memes, and the keyboard com­mandos engaging.   

I'll leave my observations a this:

I recognize a couple of guys, vendors­, site sponsors, along with a "junk dealer/industry expert" that are posting in this pos­t.   It appears to me that there was an opportu­nity here to throw some jabs at an establishe­d businesses.  A businness that owns an extremely large po­rtion of the commercial market.  The negativity and statements from some of ­the aforementioned is to be expected as their­ market share is growing smaller by the day a­nd they wish to remain solvent. My belief is that if they feel that by jumpi­ng on the bandwagon that they can put themsel­ves in a more favorable position, they do it.  I don't agree with their decisions, but I u­nderstand why they chime in and such.  ... some other's come as more of a shock to me.  I held them to a higher standard until now.
View Quote

Yep. 100% agree on basically all points.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 9:59:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/6/2020 5:43:22 AM EDT by tlandoe07]
This thread took a significantly different turn than anticipated. Before I close, I would like to dispel some of the misconceptions I've observed by some who have chimed in:

1) I do not have an axe to grind, and I have never had a problem with the vendor in question. Nothing about this thread was intended to go after someone's livelihood, and I have no brand allegiances or industry affiliations that would support me having any type of agenda that would benefit by creating drama that effects someone's business.

2) Comments that compromised the identity of the vendor were hastily redacted at their request after they reached out to me to try again with their customer service. It was after this took place that they threatened legal action, which I think any reasonable person, who acted in good faith, would consider hostile. As time went on, the thread attracted views, well after all mention was redacted. But everyone knows who it is because they continued to post in the thread.

3) Say whatever you want, mil spec, comm spec, just as good, blah blah blah.... the reality is, night vision equipment is expensive and is expected to yield high standards of performance if it is going to justify the price point. These are objectively cheap lenses; I am not referring to the cosmetic appearance of the components either. There is significant, noticeable image distortion present in both of these. Mil spec or not, these are not something you would use to put behind $7000 worth of image intensifiers. I don't know about you, but when you're paying a college semester's worth of hard earned money for high performance tubes, only to have the performance truncated by cheap glass, that says something about the guys who put that glass on the market and how seriously they take the performance of those systems- and your hard-earned money. There are two scenarios I see, both of them bad: a) they were either lied to by their supplier and believed in good faith that these were good to go, but failed to perform quality tests of their own to verify performance, or b) they knew these were janky glass, but they were available and cheap, and they sold them anyway not thinking anyone would be discerning enough to notice the difference.

Below are some comparison photos taken of the mystery lenses. You can clearly see, in both cases, a dark shadow that encircles the field of view. Obviously you can't see in a still photo, but as you scan, the edges of the FOV bend the image. Additionally, there is seriously degraded clarity within zone 3.
Attachment Attached File

Attachment Attached File

Attachment Attached File

I am not the only person who received these lenses, and I am far from the only person who is less than amused at having received them. I know where they come from, I know how much they cost compared to Carsons, and I am aware of other vendors who have received them in large quantities and have initiated returns due to severe quality deficiencies. If you think I'm making this up, well, fine, I'm not sure how to convince you otherwise, nor do I care to. I don't know what else to tell you. If you're happy with yours, that's great. I am not though, and I think people should be made aware of what to expect if they happen to be sent these lenses.


ETA: also there are bubbles in both lenses...
Attachment Attached File


...and glue on one (2 o clock), but sure, jUsT aS gOoD
Attachment Attached File


/thread
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 10:29:32 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kits4:
this thread belongs in GD.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Kits4:
this thread belongs in GD.

This is a very technical thread discussing optics. I think it absolutely belongs in here, especially if people continue to provide technical details on lenses. I'm not sure if I was being called out by Funtogun, but I can assure you - I have no Agenda at all in this. I'm a UNV customer and have purchased tubes, lenses, housings, and other parts from them. As long as they continue to be an honorable business I have no objection to making future purchases from them. I would like to also mention, I never ran into any issues with any of my prior orders.  I hope if nothing else that members are educated on various glass types so it never becomes an issue again.

Originally Posted By Funtogun:
I think it comes down to preferenc­e of the buyer.  You can tell by the initial post, the OP wa­nted a "Carson"/more matte finished eye piece.  I looked on the Vendors site, and it doesn'­t state Carson, or any other manufacturer, si­mply a part number.   From what I can tell, having both styles i­n hand at the same time, I can assert that th­e lenses and sub assemblies of the lenses are­ 100% interchangeable.  The timing of lenses to the diopter marking­ ring should be set when the units are being ­installed.  To just screw a lens on, expecting the inde­xing to be correct from the factory, would be­ a rookie mistake. 


The OP has already stated his feelings on it. The image on the vendor's website does NOT match what was sent to the OP. If nothing else, there is that. Then there's the whole tech side of the discussion and what constitutes "mil spec" and does what was sent satisfy that requirement. You're right - I think some people took it as an opportunity to take a few jabs, and I can't really fault UNV for taking it so personal. Hopefully cooler heads prevail on both sides and it remains a largely technical discussion.

In the documentation posted, I noticed an anomaly with the datecode. From a procurement and logistics side, missing that datecode identifier might cause some cataloging issues, but that is just speculation on my part. Hopefully an expert can speak to it.

I do not agree that the market is shrinking. If that were the case, there wouldn't be procurement issues on Carson lenses and we wouldn't be having this thread. If anything, I am seeing crazy demand right now, but one of the vendors could certainly speak to it better. This might be a situation where this is all that was available. Sorta like the TP and Paper towel situations going on around the country right now...  who knows?

The whole thing seems like a shitty situation.
Link Posted: 5/5/2020 10:39:50 PM EDT
Your accusations are 100% false about being a junk dealer. I’ll give you the same opportunity to redact your false and misleading comment. If not, this isn’t a threat, I’m going to sue you!

C’mon...... Your post started off fine and had some merit. But then you wanted to take shots at people for having a point of view. I get it, lot of emotions behind this thread. Most could have been avoided and some were self inflicted.

Link Posted: 5/5/2020 11:43:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/6/2020 12:04:58 AM EDT by texassooner]


ETA: another arfcommer will be out here with me tomorrow night.  I’ll have him look through it too.  I honestly can’t tell a difference.  

I think a super simple solution would be to give the customer the option of choosing which glass they want.  You want what’s on the shelf, we can send it now.  You want to wait for xyz brand, no problem.  And I’d offer to swap out the glass for anyone that doesn’t want these eyepieces for whatever reason.

UNV has a reputation of excellent customer service and I think that gesture would be well received.

I think there are some people jumping on the bandwagon with less than noble intentions.  I don’t lump OP in that category FWIW.

I won’t be returning mine.  It’s a perfectly functioning durable and quality ’14 eyepiece.  Which is exactly what I paid for.

In any case, I’ve learned a lot in this thread. For that I’m grateful.

Just my 2 cents.
Link Posted: 5/6/2020 12:02:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/6/2020 12:10:14 AM EDT by IAm4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History


Damn commie ammo eating bastard gun.....    
­






Just trying to bring a little levity to this thread
Link Posted: 5/6/2020 12:10:31 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By IAm4:


Damn commie ammo eating ba­stard gun.....    
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By IAm4:


Damn commie ammo eating bastard g­un.....    



I’ve come to find out that hogs don’t care what they are shot with but my wallet cares what I shoot hogs with
Link Posted: 5/6/2020 12:34:46 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By texassoon­er:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/62932/E46A02E7-4E6B-44FD-B376-F8C6BB949623-1403333.jpg

ETA: another arfcommer will be out here with me t­omorrow night.  I’ll have him look through it too.  I honestly can’t tell a difference.  

I think a super simple solution wou­ld be to give the customer the option­ of choosing which glass they want.  You want what’s on the shelf, we can­ send it now.  You want to wait for xyz brand, no problem.  And I’d offer to swap out the glass for any­one that doesn’t want these eyepieces for wha­tever reason. 

 UNV has a reputation of excellent c­ustomer service and I think that gesture woul­d be well received.

I think there are some people jumping­ on the bandwagon with less than noble intent­ions.  I don’t lump OP in that category FWIW.

I won’t be returning mine.  It’s a perfectly functioning durable and qu­ality ’14 eyepiece.  Which is exactly what I paid for. 

In any case, I’ve learned a lot in t­his thread. For that I’m grateful. 

Just my 2 cents.
View Quote


Or, in my case, give the option and have a drop down box that explains the difference and why it might matter if at all. Thus removing the ambiguity for absolute novices like myself.
Link Posted: 5/6/2020 12:28:24 PM EDT
Below you can see a spot of glue at 2-o-clock from where they used glue to seal the spanner
Attachment Attached File


In this image you can see a bubble in the edge of the “glass” that is in the same spot on both lens cells. It appears to be a flashing mark from an injection mold. It’s very likely the lenses themselves are made of plastic.
Attachment Attached File
Link Posted: 5/6/2020 12:54:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/6/2020 12:55:59 PM EDT by codzilla]
Are the Carson and Apache optic cells the same weight?
Link Posted: 5/6/2020 1:54:39 PM EDT
Taking out the drama, and sticking to the tech.  Two distinct issues here.  First the difference in quality between Apache and Carson.  Second the interchangeability of parts.  

This seems to be both subjective and objective.  Some guys see a difference in quality, some shrug it off.  A possible explanation could be a swing in quality, from lot to lot.  Or some guys are more discerning than others.  And then, it could be the market is seeing more vendors enter the game, with varying degrees of QC.  

If the vendor is shooting it straight, then this means there are now "mil-spec" parts, which pass the min std, but are far below the quality we've come to expect.  So instead of discussing just mil-spec std, you have to look at what might be termed "industry standards".

You see this in the "mil-spec" firearms industry as well.  Since we don't have the drawings (or TDP) for a M-4, the next best way to compare parts is to have a complete set of mil-spec M-4 parts (sans select fire stuff) to be able to mic.  So you'd need a complete set of Carson parts for comparison of any new supply source.  Some firearms mfg's have surpassed the mil-spec; you might see the same thing happening here.  This argument kinda reminds me of all the debate between a guy building a PSA rifle, and the dude building a BCM one.  As in our guy building the BCM rifle orders some parts that are advertised as BCM, and gets PSA.  I think you'd see much the same arguments as we've seen here.  Some will say, yeah you're right, the old bait and switch; some will say what's wrong with PSA?  Muh rifle works jus' fine.  The problem here is we now have to figure out how to rate all the NV vendors in the mix, as all the firearms vendors we've come to know and love?!

As to interchangeability of parts.  This is where it gets strange, because some have reported that these parts will not interchange; some are claiming the exact opposite.  Again, wide QC swings?  Within the spec?  Different vendors, or subcontractors?  This one is strange because I think both parties are telling it exactly like what they're finding; so how do you reconcile this one?  The only thing I would say is that interchangeability of parts is the reason you'd have a mil-spec in the first place.  If there are parts out there that will not interchange, then that vendor needs to be identified and those that require this feature can steer clear of them.  

The only conclusion I can draw from any of this, is that building a parts NVD these days is fraught with peril.  What was once a gimmie, is now something has to be double-checked.  It's like the parts bins from Colt, DPMS, and PSA have been mixed in together and it's a crap shoot what you're gonna get.
Link Posted: 5/7/2020 4:13:11 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tlandoe07:
Here are just a few samples of mil­ spec glass I had lying around. They are from different manufacturers and va­rying vintages. One thing they have in common is they all lo­ck at +2 for their maximum counter clockwise ­rotation. This condition is actually specified in the ­23&P:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/460535/25mm_diopter_PNG-1401411.JPG

As you can see with the mystery gla­ss, even when I took the lens cell out and ad­justed it over until it would land as close a­s possible to +2, it still went past +2 (whic­h is allowable to some degree, but not more t­han two holes in the indicator plate) and als­o in an inconsistent amount between eyepieces. So if you bought these, you would have no ch­oice but to totally disassemble the eyepiece ­and properly set the diopter ring, which is a­n asspain that no military NVG maintenance sh­op has time for, certainly mine doesn’t. 
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/460535/1AFAF06C-090F-4BAB-8394-4848D32CE789_jpe-1401361.JPG
View Quote


Huh.  That's interesting.  My eyepieces do not stop at +2.  They don't fish-eye and I have no other reason to believe they are "bad" though (not that I would really know anyway, nothing to compare to and not experienced in NV)
Link Posted: 5/8/2020 12:11:39 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By UNV:

Yes. These are not commercial optics from Optroni­cs Engineering in Israel. These come from the same vendor in Singapore­ that has been producing optics that have bee­n supplied to DoD in PVS-14 eyepieces for over a decade. Where does Qioptiq glass come from? Singapor­e. 



When I am in the office next­ week I will post the test sample report data­ to support it.  There are some users on this site that shou­ld stop jumping to conclusions and publishing­ written false statements that could damage U­NV's reputation. 


Just an FYI - we will do whatever we have to do to maintai­n our pristine reputation and that includes l­egal action against libel. I have worked very hard to build it. That is not a threat, it is just unfortunate­ly what we have to do when people or companie­s defame our name whether by accident or for ­personal gain. Please just try and remember that there are ­people behind each handle and what you say an­d publish online can have real consequences. 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By UNV:
Originally Posted By chosos:
I dont think the AGM glass is tras­h, but it certainly isnt as clear or without ­distortion as other milspec glass i have used.

As Vic said, it is at a lower pricepo­int, but lacks the same quality. Why would this be sold and passed off as hig­her quality glass, when it clearly isn't? Man­y users are fine with saving some $ on cheape­r glass as long as they know up front, howeve­r nobody is fine paying more for cheaper glas­s.

So if this isn't milspec, how would t­hat impact any devices with them? Would they ­need to be recalled? 

Is there anythin­g UNV or AGM can post solidifying the lenses ­are indeed milspec?

Yes. These are not commercial optics from Optroni­cs Engineering in Israel. These come from the same vendor in Singapore­ that has been producing optics that have bee­n supplied to DoD in PVS-14 eyepieces for over a decade. Where does Qioptiq glass come from? Singapor­e. 



When I am in the office next­ week I will post the test sample report data­ to support it.  There are some users on this site that shou­ld stop jumping to conclusions and publishing­ written false statements that could damage U­NV's reputation. 


Just an FYI - we will do whatever we have to do to maintai­n our pristine reputation and that includes l­egal action against libel. I have worked very hard to build it. That is not a threat, it is just unfortunate­ly what we have to do when people or companie­s defame our name whether by accident or for ­personal gain. Please just try and remember that there are ­people behind each handle and what you say an­d publish online can have real consequences. 


   For what it’s worth this is not a good look on you or your company.  I am starting to warm up to my first NV purchase and came to the thread to learn a little.
 
  I have no dog in the fight as to what you do or do not sale nor the knowledge to dispute it’s authenticity.
 So with that said the OP did not influence me in any way to look bad at your company or you.   Unfortunately your post with it’s FYI did.    
 There is a saying I heard that applies.  “The customer isn’t always right but they are allowed to be wrong”
Remember that next time for you threaten to sue a customer online
Link Posted: 5/8/2020 10:01:18 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Klaustrop­hobia:


Huh.  That's interesting.  My eyepieces do not stop at +2.  They don't fish-eye and I have no other reason to believe the­y are "bad" though (not that I would really k­now anyway, nothing to compare to and not exp­erienced in NV)
View Quote

I have received more eyepieces in the last 10 years that DON'T stop at +2 than have. It's simple to fix and should be checked by anyone assembling a unit prior to putting the eyepiece on. If yours don't stop at or near +2 then it was assembled incorrectly.
Link Posted: 5/8/2020 1:10:32 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By rbhoover:

I have received more eyepieces­ in the last 10 years that DON'T stop at +2 t­han have. It's simple to fix and should be checked by ­anyone assembling a unit prior to putting the­ eyepiece on. If yours don't stop at or near +2 then it wa­s assembled incorrectly.
View Quote


@rbhoover can you give a little more color on this topic?  Specifically why they need to be calibrated in this manner?
Page / 7
Top Top