Armory Sponsor
Posted: 9/1/2012 12:53:04 PM EDT
|
All,
What is the lightest night vision setup? I like the idea of running a battery pack on the back of the head and no power on the front. Someone one here in the NVG helmet thread (page 22) had a set of anvis 9's in an ops core head crusher. That looks like a really nice no BS setup. It that he'd crusher really comfortable ? Or is a helmet the only way to go? I want duals but may go with just my 14 to safe weight. Mers |
|
If you want light weight, and would consider a monocular then look at the MUM.
The PVS-14 is 12.4 oz The MUM is 9.2 oz If you want Binos, then I think while the BNVD, PVS-15, and the -23/AVIS are all pretty much the same weight, I think that weight includes the ANVS battery pack. To drop the battery pack weight, Wilcox Eng offers a "Simple Battery Pack" http://www.wilcoxeng-res.com/sbp.html which uses a single CR123A battery instead of the 4 AAs. The PT Bravo Half-Shell is 15 oz The Ops Core Base Jump is 1.5 lbs |
|
16mm single monocular. eg, Tarsius16 That's why they made them. Example size difference. The US makes 16mm tubes as well, but most are used in multitube systems. I don't know if the US makes a 16mm monocular yet. Regards David |
|
I would think if you could get a Micro or another of the AB housings it would be the perfect balance of weight and capability. I'm not a huge fan of the c-mount lenses in comparison to ANVIS or PVS-14 lenses. Sure small is great, but if you give up capability it might not be worth the weight savings.
Someday we'll have NV built into a pair of contact lenses..... |
|
MUM housings are not being produced any longer
I didn't know that about the MUM-14's. I like the optics and lite-weight of the MUM-14 really a nice system overall are they replacing it with anything new or just everyone going with the PVS-14 since its pretty much the military standard? I have always liked the PVS-18 also, but they are so over priced when a 14 can do everything the 18 can maybe even better with the variable gain for a much better price. |
|
Quoted:
MUM housings are not being produced any longer
I didn't know that about the MUM-14's. I like the optics and lite-weight of the MUM-14 really a nice system overall are they replacing it with anything new or just everyone going with the PVS-14 since its pretty much the military standard? I have always liked the PVS-18 also, but they are so over priced when a 14 can do everything the 18 can maybe even better with the variable gain for a much better price. MUM-14B http://www.opticsbrands.com/product/nivisys-mum-14b-multi-use-mini-monocular/ Weight-Wise... MUM-14A: 260 grams/9.2 oz MUM-14B: 293 grams/10.3 ounces |
|
Quoted: Quoted: MUM housings are not being produced any longer I didn't know that about the MUM-14's. I like the optics and lite-weight of the MUM-14 really a nice system overall are they replacing it with anything new or just everyone going with the PVS-14 since its pretty much the military standard? I have always liked the PVS-18 also, but they are so over priced when a 14 can do everything the 18 can maybe even better with the variable gain for a much better price. MUM-14B http://www.opticsbrands.com/product/nivisys-mum-14b-multi-use-mini-monocular/ Weight-Wise... MUM-14A: 260 grams/9.2 oz MUM-14B: 293 grams/10.3 ounces One of the biggest differences I noticed between the MUM-A and the MUM-B was the switching system. The MUM-A uses a push-button like the GT-14 IIRC? Anyway, I don't know about the new systems, but the old MUMM-14 had one of the best lenses I've seen in a monocular - very nice optics. Regards David
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
MUM housings are not being produced any longer
I didn't know that about the MUM-14's. I like the optics and lite-weight of the MUM-14 really a nice system overall are they replacing it with anything new or just everyone going with the PVS-14 since its pretty much the military standard? I have always liked the PVS-18 also, but they are so over priced when a 14 can do everything the 18 can maybe even better with the variable gain for a much better price. MUM-14B http://www.opticsbrands.com/product/nivisys-mum-14b-multi-use-mini-monocular/ Weight-Wise... MUM-14A: 260 grams/9.2 oz MUM-14B: 293 grams/10.3 ounces One of the biggest differences I noticed between the MUM-A and the MUM-B was the switching system. The MUM-A uses a push-button like the GT-14 IIRC? Anyway, I don't know about the new systems, but the old MUMM-14 had one of the best lenses I've seen in a monocular - very nice optics. Regards David The original MUM has a push/turn switch I had stripped on a few occasions. Maybe it was just me, but in a high stress environments, turning the unit on in a hurry, I stripped a few out. Just turned instead of pressing first.  I was not found of the original switch but hey, it was probably a training issue in those days!  The original MUM contract unit was designed and built for NSWDG as it met the original 66feet waterproof requirement.
I agree with the optics statement, VERY good glass to this day. Vic |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
MUM housings are not being produced any longer
I didn't know that about the MUM-14's. I like the optics and lite-weight of the MUM-14 really a nice system overall are they replacing it with anything new or just everyone going with the PVS-14 since its pretty much the military standard? I have always liked the PVS-18 also, but they are so over priced when a 14 can do everything the 18 can maybe even better with the variable gain for a much better price. MUM-14B http://www.opticsbrands.com/product/nivisys-mum-14b-multi-use-mini-monocular/ Weight-Wise... MUM-14A: 260 grams/9.2 oz MUM-14B: 293 grams/10.3 ounces One of the biggest differences I noticed between the MUM-A and the MUM-B was the switching system. The MUM-A uses a push-button like the GT-14 IIRC? Anyway, I don't know about the new systems, but the old MUMM-14 had one of the best lenses I've seen in a monocular - very nice optics. Regards David Looks like a rotating switch to me. Haven't handled one in person Too bad the MUM-14 didn't have better accessory options. As I understand it, the MUM's helmet mounts suck. Since they're not compatible with any of the PVS-14 helmet mounts it takes it off the table for a lot of potential buyers. I've considered buying a MUM when I finally rake together enough cash, but I've got a Norotos Shroud/A2AK/Dual Dovetail setup sitting aside for when I get NV, and I won't use another loose mount ever again. |
|
Quoted:
MUM-14B http://www.opticsbrands.com/product/nivisys-mum-14b-multi-use-mini-monocular/ Weight-Wise... MUM-14A: 260 grams/9.2 oz MUM-14B: 293 grams/10.3 ounces Not really a replacement, though. MUM comes from Insight Technologies, not Nivisys. After Insight has been absorbed by L3, the MUM fell victim to that acquisition - L3 most likely feel M914 and M983 are sufficient as a portfolio of monoculars. |
|
What do you guys think of this add?
Click Here What does filmless mean? why is that thing $3600? is this tube dirty? looks spotty to me Mike |
|
Well, first it ain't no MUM but one of the cheaper clones which are floating around and noone really knows who makes them.
My best bet is on Russia, Belarus or Israel. But the tube is clearly US made, by L3, ComSpec, autogated, filmless. Filmless tube means it lacks the ion barrier which protects the rear side of the GaAs photocathode against gas molecules trapped in the MCP structure. The ion barrier prevents a part of the photons from entering the micro channels of the MCP, thus removing it means increasing the performance. Filmless tubes are also rumored for generally very low EBI values (dark current) and small halo sizes. The dark side of it is that the tube becomes prone to damages of the cathode and is entirely dependent on protection of autogating. Why $3,600.00? Because the filmless DF3s are quite rare. Their production is also more demanding, especially the MCP glass has to be extremely pure, produced in extreme vacuum to keep the number of gas molecules trapped inside the MCP on minimum levels. If you want to ask whether the filmless tubes are better than Pinnacles then my answer would be yes, in my opinion they are. If you want to ask whether the performance difference is worth the increased cost, then that's entirely up to you. . |
|
Quoted:
Well, first it ain't no MUM but one of the cheaper clones which are floating around and noone really knows who makes them. My best bet is on Russia, Belarus or Israel. But the tube is clearly US made, by L3, ComSpec, autogated, filmless. Filmless tube means it lacks the ion barrier which protects the rear side of the GaAs photocathode against gas molecules trapped in the MCP structure. The ion barrier prevents a part of the photons from entering the micro channels of the MCP, thus removing it means increasing the performance. Filmless tubes are also rumored for generally very low EBI values (dark current) and small halo sizes. The dark side of it is that the tube becomes prone to damages of the cathode and is entirely dependent on protection of autogating. Why $3,600.00? Because the filmless DF3s are quite rare. Their production is also more demanding, especially the MCP glass has to be extremely pure, produced in extreme vacuum to keep the number of gas molecules trapped inside the MCP on minimum levels. If you want to ask whether the filmless tubes are better than Pinnacles then my answer would be yes, in my opinion they are. If you want to ask whether the performance difference is worth the increased cost, then that's entirely up to you. . What about the spots? |
Armory Sponsor