Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/10/2002 2:16:28 PM EDT
Has anyone had experience with a B.E Meyers NITEMARE #4100-I night vision scope in combination with an Aimpoint ML2. Is there a night scope as good as Meyers, but less cost.
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 2:19:30 PM EDT
Can you provide a link for that NV scope? And BTW, it's the Comp M2 that is NV compatible. The one pictured in the SWFA site is the either the AN/PVS-14 w/ var gain or the ITT 6015P w/o gain adjustment. The AN/PVS-14 runs about $3500 and ITT 6015P is about $3000 more or less.
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 2:26:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 2:43:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2002 2:44:11 PM EDT by 5subslr5]
I've looked at the specs on the Nitemare and they're good Gen III specs but I wouldn't say III+.
What's the cost of the Nitemare ??
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 3:00:12 PM EDT
nightvision has been around a while but most of us don't have a lot of personal experience.

There is one guy I've done business with several times and that I trust so, for what it's worth I'm going to give you his info:

Wes Grant
Good guy, honest and knowledgable.
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 7:17:22 PM EDT
Cost of Nitemare is $2,500
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 8:21:55 PM EDT
I "believe" there are only two tube manufacturers - Litton and ITT (?).

Further I believe all tubes have flaws - spots -some more and some less.
What seems to be of more importance is where the spots are located on the tube. Obviously around the center is bad and around the periphery is not as bad.

I have at least a layman's understanding of resolution expressed in lp/mm - I believe the Mare is 40 lp/mm and a sort of reg. low end Gen III is 36 lp/mm so this Mare is slightly better here. The Mare's signal-to-noise ratio is 16:1 and that's about standard for a low end GEN III.

(lp/mm = line pairs per milimeter - here the higher the better. A real Gen III+ scope will have about 64 lp/mm and a signal to noise ratio of 21:1 or better - 26:1 is about the best I remember seeing. At 64 lp/mm you have about a television picture quality - good - real good.
The signal-to-noise is the scopes ability to discriminate, to dig a signal out of the noise - electronic noise. As I said 16:1 is no better than average.)

Now when I look at B.E. Meyers line-up the "Owl" is the scope that should logically be in the position where der Mare sits. I believe the text says the OWL is more expensive.

To the point. I'm guessing the Mare although having the technical specifications of a low end Gen III - definitely not a Gen III+ - has a more flawed tube (more spots and/or more spots and in the wrong place) and that's how B.E. Meyers is coming in with this lower price on the MARE.

The OWL has better specs and a less flawed tube and therefore brings a higher price.

If you're still awake my congratulations !!

Is this MARE a 4 X or (?) X scope. Probably a 4X is about the best for general purpose use - the higher the magnification the less light gathering capabilities.

My final comment is certain to delight you !
In my unqualified opinion you have to spend about $4500.00 to get a decent nightvision scope - 64 lp/mm and signal to noise ratio of 21:1 or better.

There's one more technical factor of importance but I'm sure neither of us can stand thinking about it tonight.

Link Posted: 1/10/2002 9:26:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2002 9:27:00 PM EDT by Big_B]

I thought that the Raptor was "top of the line" and yet according to the specs you list for "a decent nightvision scope" the Raptor falls short in some regards.

If the Raptor isn't good enough and it costs about $6,500.00 for a 4x what can you get for $4,500.00 that is as good, or better?
Link Posted: 1/11/2002 4:36:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Big_B:

I thought that the Raptor was "top of the line" and yet according to the specs you list for "a decent nightvision scope" the Raptor falls short in some regards.

If the Raptor isn't good enough and it costs about $6,500.00 for a 4x what can you get for $4,500.00 that is as good, or better?

I hope I didn't say the Raptor isn't good enough. Haven't looked (drulled) at Raptor's in a while. There's more to being a good anything than just spec's. For one thing the Raptor is a stand-alone nightvision scope and doesn't have to be used in conjunction with anything. Another is the Raptor's superb construction.
Again I haven't checked in a while but is the Raptor milspec ?? At any rate a fine tough scope.
Link Posted: 1/12/2002 6:04:36 AM EDT
I looked at the specs and ad for the monocular in question. For some reason the specs fall in between omni-1 an omni-2, not sure what that means. Also, there is technically no such thing as gen 3+, and if there was that would not be it. Normally that kind of advertising is restricted to some of the lower quality NV makers, not sure why Meyers would do that either.
If you are looking for alternatives, the actual mil-spec version of the AN/PVS-14D would be the ultimate, and in my opinion the Litton version is top of the line. ITT also makes this actual mil-spec 14, but you have to work hard to get it, and they make several variants for less money. The full mil-spec versions are very similar in price. US Night Vision sells a very nice gen 3 monocular that is nicer looking, lighter, smaller and more versatile than the Meyers device. You may want to check that out. It is called the Falcon 3000, retail is about $2300 and it has a minimum omi 2 spec tube. You can request omni 3 spec also. I don't know if I am overstepping the boundries of the forum, but will add that I can help you acquire either the Falcon, or the Litton AN/PVS-14.
As for tubes, most commercial spec tubes will either have blemishes or fall short of some of the omni-spec requirements, that is why they are commercial. Some of them fall short in many areas, that is why, whatever you buy, you need to have a satisfaction/return guarantee. I have seen some devices come through(not from Litton) with commercial tubes that were really ugly, and for what they were sold as, we could not sell them in good conscience. Others are very nice, and you would not notice any real flaws in them, usually some aspect of performance is a bit low, such as the photoresponse being just a bit low, or low sig/noise ratio or something like that. From what you stated you are looking for a 1X monocular to mount with an aimpoint or other optical sight? Therefore any comparison of Raptors or other weapons specific sights is irrelevant for now?
Top Top