Armory Sponsor
Posted: 2/11/2015 8:42:13 PM EDT
This shit is greek to me. Anyone one give me the tl:dr version? 
|
|
Quoted:
I thought they were Omni VIII's. Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like your tube falls into the Omini IV category nice tube! Sure someone will be along shortly to tell you more. I thought they were Omni VIII's. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_18/317705_US_Omni_Classifications__Table_of_Differences.html Tube looks good to me |
|
Quoted:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_18/317705_US_Omni_Classifications__Table_of_Differences.html Tube looks good to me Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like your tube falls into the Omini IV category nice tube! Sure someone will be along shortly to tell you more. I thought they were Omni VIII's. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_18/317705_US_Omni_Classifications__Table_of_Differences.html Tube looks good to me How have we not seen an improvement in lpi since operation desert shield? |
|
Quoted:
OP, I was advised that its ill advised to post pics of spec sheets. ITAR violation of some horse shit. As for LPI I have a L3 omni VIII with 72lpi but min spec is 64, so if it meets 64lpi its within spec. +1 Take the pics down and just type the specs in or check out the table. Solid tube, it should produce a good image 
ETA: resolution isn't the only determining factor. You also have EBI, signal to noise ratio, an luminous that determine what spec tube you have. The l3 tube from the OP fits into omni 8 current spec |
|
That doesn't look Omni IV to me...
Keep in mind, Omni Spec's also have date ranges. While his #'s exceed Omni IV specs, the tube date/CAD probably falls within Omni VIII. I also have a pair of Omni VIII MX-10160 L3 tubes that have similar specs that came out of a brand new TNVC Sentinel manufactured in 2014. I also had a little disappointment in the spec sheets, because they seem so "average". I think we're so used seeing increasing specs on later Omni classifications, that we often forget that in many ways Omni VIII was a downgrade. |
Armory Sponsor