User Panel
All the disadvantages of a bino and monocular in one unit
. Still it's a gen three tube, if it's a really good deal. |
|
Quoted:
All the disadvantages of a bino and monocular in one unit . Still it's a gen three tube, if it's a really good deal. View Quote |
|
I'd rather spend 1k(can sell for profit) to see how I like NVG's vs 8k(can sell for huge loss/long wait time)
|
|
|
I didn't ended up going for 1200, I'm going to keep saving and try and catch some for a deal.
|
|
|
Make sure you get info on the intensifier tube. There’s been some huge variances in quality between several of the pvs7s I’ve owned. I wish I knew everything I know now lol. It would’ve saved me lots of money!
|
|
Anything Omni 4 or better should be good. You can specifically look for something with an mx10130D tube.
|
|
To be honest to the OP, if your not hunting bad guys at night then you have nothing to worry about a mono or bino setup. My unit uses both 14s and 7s (still). I do fine with both but we prefer (transitioning all of then to 14s) the PVS-14s because big Army says so and it's easier for us to transition and able to aim down our weapon. For personal use I would love to have a PVS7. It's better than nothing at all.
|
|
I was on the hunt for my 1st personally owned NV and was initially happy to keep pvs7's as my goal. The more I thought about the added cost of outfitting my "system" with a pvs7, I started considering a pvs14 deal. Already own a few high end NV compatible red dots, but own no IR lasers. The -14's will work much better with my NV red dots, vs the 7's, and I won't have to rely on a quality laser as my primary sighting method (I don't already own one$$). Still plan to get an inexpensive IR laser for rifles, like a Lasermax.
If I hate walking around with a monocle, I can always find someone to swap me for their -7 (plus $$ of course) lol. |
|
Quoted:
Anything Omni 4 or better should be good. You can specifically look for something with an mx10130D tube. View Quote Whats a good mount for a helmet set up? Helmet I'm looking at running (can't afford ballistic and don't kick doors for a living) |
|
Quoted: Scooped up a set of 7's NIB gen3 with the mx10130D tube for a great price. Whats a good mount for a helmet set up? Helmet I'm looking at running (can't afford ballistic and don't kick doors for a living) View Quote |
|
The Rhino II is an excellent mount for the money. As for the helmet, the team Wendy EXFIL is extremely comfortable but unfortunately their politics suck (they supported Hillary).
If you’re going to get an opscore you’ll probably want to get the 4D pad set up from TNVC, or maybe take a look at the MTEK flux helmet. |
|
I'd recommend buying a used EXFIL LTP from Team Wendy. As stated above, the company sucks but you can't beat the comfort for the price. I would personally never buy a new one but there's no harm in buying used so you're not "supporting" them in any way. In my opinion at least.
|
|
|
Quoted:
I'd recommend buying a used EXFIL LTP from Team Wendy. As stated above, the company sucks but you can't beat the comfort for the price. I would personally never buy a new one but there's no harm in buying used so you're not "supporting" them in any way. In my opinion at least. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Got anLTP off ebay in my size for 225, bought a used rhino mount for $25. Ordered some adapters for ear pro, now I just need to get some comtacs cheap View Quote Congrats btw! |
|
|
For anyone eyeing this thread because they're interested in cheap NV... check out the NV EE right now (not my ad)
|
|
|
Quoted: What do you mean, ad. It's now ads, as in about 3 or 4 different threads! And, right after I closed my deal. I'm still very happy with my deal tho. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Is your new LTP black? I'd expect we've been watching the same auctions and EE deals over the past month! I ended up with a sweet deal on a pvs14 and a like new Tan CF Ops Core. If you don't mind, shoot me a pm and let me know what deal you finally landed on. I'll do the same if you're interested. I grew-up" in the mil with -7's and am very comfortable with walking, driving, and lazing/rifle, but never tried to use a red dot with -7's. If you need an option for a budget IR laser for now, I'm giving the Lasermax Rifle Kit a shot, but will be using a couple of my NV capable optics as primary when shooting AR's with my -14's. I hope it all works out... its expensive to break into the world of night-eyes on your own dime lol. Congrats btw! View Quote I'm pretty sure its the rhino I but not sure how to discern between 1 and 2, either way $25 if it sucks I can upgrade but thats the whole point of this set up. Already running a Dbal I2 I got from DSG for $550 Next thing to find out and I hate being patient is if my 3m range guard will work in the same mounts as a Comtac when the mounts get here. |
|
Quoted:
Next thing to find out and I hate being patient is if my 3m range guard will work in the same mounts as a Comtac when the mounts get here. View Quote |
|
Makes sense, and now that I look at it its kind of a duh moment. But no one really talks about this stuff or doing mods to it.
|
|
Your range guards will 100% work. I tried my Howard leights and the adjustment was way too loose for my liking.
|
|
Quoted:
Mine is tan, from everything I heard its supposed to be the most comfortable plus I wear a 7 7/8 hat so the ops core only listing up to 5/8ths made me a little nervous... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: Is your new LTP black? I'd expect we've been watching the same auctions and EE deals over the past month! I ended up with a sweet deal on a pvs14 and a like new Tan CF Ops Core. If you don't mind, shoot me a pm and let me know what deal you finally landed on. I'll do the same if you're interested... Congrats btw! The interior hard-shell of the helmet uses removable, Styrofoam with felt-lined pads to customize the fit. On the 2 sides, there's 1 pad each side that doesn't even touch my head, but I'm not rattling around or bumping into trees yet either. There's also a large rear pad (that Velcro's-in just above the rotating knob) and you get 2 options for head size. One of those rear pads is 1/2" thick, the other pad is 3/4" thick. I kept the 1/2" thick pad in mine. There's another 2 pads for the top of the head (2 small pads that Velcro in place), that also have the same 1/2" or 3/4" option for sizing. I went with the thicker 3/4" pads to get the helmet to sit higher off my head, and the front edge to sit higher above my brow line. When I place it on my head as configured above, there's probably less than a full rotation of the fitment wheel, but the hard-shell of the helmet definitely has lots more room for more melon to fit inside. The 4 side/chin straps have a couple more inches to extend further out, so those straps have plenty more room for a bigger melon. I'm not swimming in the Ops Core, but there's easily another 1/4" more room in the headband. At least another 1" or so before my head touched any of the hard interior of the helmet. My head is more oblong, than round (the front-to-back measurement puts me in a L/XL). Went around and around with motorcycle helmets, so nothing new. Anyway, unless you have a really long and narrow 7 7/8 head, I'd expect an Ops Core would work for you. |
|
Quoted: I wear a 7 1/2 hat and my L/XL Carbon Ops Core seems to have plenty of room left when I slip it on, then it requires rotating the fitment-wheel thing, located at the back of the wearer's head. It snugs the head harness nice and snug. A slight twist to loosen and take it off each time. The interior hard-shell of the helmet uses removable, Styrofoam with felt-lined pads to customize the fit. On the 2 sides, there's 1 pad each side that doesn't even touch my head, but I'm not rattling around or bumping into trees yet either. There's also a large rear pad (that Velcro's-in just above the rotating knob) and you get 2 options for head size. One of those rear pads is 1/2" thick, the other pad is 3/4" thick. I kept the 1/2" thick pad in mine. There's another 2 pads for the top of the head (2 small pads that Velcro in place), that also have the same 1/2" or 3/4" option for sizing. I went with the thicker 3/4" pads to get the helmet to sit higher off my head, and the front edge to sit higher above my brow line. When I place it on my head as configured above, there's probably less than a full rotation of the fitment wheel, but the hard-shell of the helmet definitely has lots more room for more melon to fit inside. The 4 side/chin straps have a couple more inches to extend further out, so those straps have plenty more room for a bigger melon. I'm not swimming in the Ops Core, but there's easily another 1/4" more room in the headband. At least another 1" or so before my head touched any of the hard interior of the helmet. My head is more oblong, than round (the front-to-back measurement puts me in a L/XL). Went around and around with motorcycle helmets, so nothing new. Anyway, unless you have a really long and narrow 7 7/8 head, I'd expect an Ops Core would work for you. View Quote |
|
Well got home, everything was there but the mount. I get familiarity with the controls and fire up the pvs7’s in total darkness and it’s got a huge black spot dead center. So going through the hassle of an eBay return. Seller claims I should know based on the price it wasn’t 100%... nothing in the description about it.
But that’s what you get when you try and save money and use eBay. |
|
Quoted:
Well got home, everything was there but the mount. I get familiarity with the controls and fire up the pvs7’s in total darkness and it’s got a huge black spot dead center. So going through the hassle of an eBay return. Seller claims I should know based on the price it wasn’t 100%... nothing in the description about it. But that’s what you get when you try and save money and use eBay. View Quote |
|
I've had good luck on Ebay, but you need to ask about the image quality before you buy. Also, nothing beats seeing an actual picture of what the image actualy looks like. There is a lot of crap out there for sale!
|
|
Yeah, never buy NVDs on eBay without pictures through the tube.
|
|
Yeah I figured with it be an actual company and not an individual I would have been OK with it listed as new and the good tube in it.
They sent me a return label. So upsides: I like the pvs 7 not heavy at all even with a huge black spot walking around with them hand held wasn't bad I have a full helmet set up now I didn't need an extra IR illuminator |
|
Quoted:
Well got home, everything was there but the mount. I get familiarity with the controls and fire up the pvs7's in total darkness and it's got a huge black spot dead center. So going through the hassle of an eBay return. Seller claims I should know based on the price it wasn't 100%... nothing in the description about it. But that's what you get when you try and save money and use eBay. View Quote Ebay link |
|
Quoted:
Yeah I figured with it be an actual company and not an individual I would have been OK with it listed as new and the good tube in it. They sent me a return label. So upsides: I like the pvs 7 not heavy at all even with a huge black spot walking around with them hand held wasn't bad I have a full helmet set up now I didn't need an extra IR illuminator View Quote |
|
View Quote got your email zac, gonna take a week or two and pay off the cards for everything else. If you still have them when I've got cash I'll message you |
|
This tread peaked my interest in picking up a PVS7, so what is the current going price?
|
|
Quoted:
This tread peaked my interest in picking up a PVS7, so what is the current going price? View Quote On average maybe $1300 for a solid unit with an average (modern) tube and average milspec housing. I'll be selling a blem PVS7 mil tube in a brand new milspec housing and optics soon if you're interested |
|
i have both 7 and 14..i grab my 7 90% of the time for yard detail.it just feels right.my wife prefers the 14 though.check the ee.i got mine for 1100 and it is a gen3 with a little tiny black dot..no biggie..fwiw,i would rather have 3 pvs7's for 1 pvs 14.only thing i will add,the 7 needs to go on a helmet,i tried it on a nite cap and it kinda suked.
|
|
Any NVG's are better than no NVG's.
I used -7's and -14's a lot in the Marines, and while I prefer the 14's, the 7's did OK, they were older gen as well. I'm sure a newer gen tube in a 7 would be on par with older 14's. Hell, I even like my OLD ASS gen 1 re-packaged Russian monocle scope, it's only slightly better than adapted night vision without an IR flood light, but it's still better than nothing. |
|
Quoted:
only thing i will add,the 7 needs to go on a helmet,i tried it on a nite cap and it kinda suked. View Quote https://www.cryeprecision.com/ProductDetail/acchd202000_nightcap-battery-pouch |
|
Quoted:
Any specifics that weren't already covered by both sides? I still don't see a real advantage vs binos and any advantages a 14 has over 7 that doesn't also affect binos also. View Quote We can throw around jargon all we want--but seeing two slightly different images in either eye is going to have an effect on depth perception. It's a slightly silly exercise that doesn't necessarily prove anything on its own--but can you do "Magic Eye" or other stereograms? Try it with binos, and then try it with a set of PVS-7s... you can resolve the image through NVDs with binos because you're replicating stereoscopic vision, you can't with PVS-7s because you're seeing an identical image in both eyes. The thing to understand about the PVS-7 is that they were invented literally because the Army thought that Infantrymen weren't worth the cost of two tubes. The old PVS-5s were binocular devices, and no one didn't think that binoculars were better--but the thought was that Infantrymen could "get away" with a single tube and cut the cost of NVDs in half, which had its pros and cons--the big pro being the ability to equip more personnel with night vision, the PVS-14 was in turn designed to offer a better solution to the "one tube conceit" that had been established by the PVS-7. Something to consider is that aviators have never used single tube systems, they're moving faster, and dealing with more complex spatial relationships, one has to ask oneself, "why is that?" The question to ask, especially when spending your own money, and not the government's is to look at what folks who don't have to ask "how much" are using and why, rather than the folks who are asking "what can we get away with?" This is not to say we're not all going to be able to afford what those guys are using, but tracing their reasoning back to the source can help you better interrogate your own needs. So, I've been preaching what makes binos better than bioculars, and many may say "sure, duh, they cost upwards of 5-6 times as much as 7s, but what makes 14s better than 7s" besides the weight/form factor? So here goes: In all but the darkest of conditions, the PVS-14 will give you superior depth perception because your unaided eye is still processing some information, though you may not be fully conscious of it. The manual gain controls which allow you to adjust the brightness of the tube will in fact be a great aid in ensuring that you pick up as much supplementary information as possible without your brain being "overwhelmed" by the sensory information from your NV aided eye. In conditions so dark that you can't pick up any supplementary information, using a single tube, you're essentially "on par" with a PVS-7 for depth perception. Nevertheless, some people report the PVS-7s to be comfortable or generally "friendlier" than PVS-14s, what's that all about? IMHO and IME--it's because the PVS-7s are tricking your brain. To a certain extent, this goes back to why the Army thought that PVS-7s were a good idea in the first place, coming off of dual tube goggles. What PVS-7s do is to give both of your eyes an aided NV view through a single, center-mounted tube. You are not a cyclops, and your brain has not evolved to process information like a cyclops. So when you see the split image in front of your eyes, regardless of what you may know about the device intellectually, your brain processes the information as if it was normal stereoscopic vision, because that's the way it's used to processing information. That is to say, your brain "thinks" it's seeing two different images, and tells the rest of your body that "everything's cool, we can see like normal." Because of this, you "feel" more comfortable--and more confident while wearing them. But this is a false sense of confidence, because you do not in fact have the quality of information that your brain thinks you have. This ultimately leads to more injuries and more struggles with movement--I have seen more people take spills, small and large, over relatively easy terrain using PVS-7s than I ever have with PVS-14s or BNVDs. This is because they feel more confident than they "should" be, and they process the information being given to them by their goggles as if it was stereoscopic vision, but it's not, which ultimately leads to more miscalculations, misplaced steps, etc. I've run full tilt into a ditch that I didn't see while wearing PVS-7s, it's not as though I haven't spent time under them--I learned to be a Platoon Leader using them. Now, if you're moving slowly, over fairly familiar and uncomplex terrain, PVS-7s can be fine--for slow and deliberate movements like those of the Cold War Infantry, using NVDs to move to Patrol Bases or lay in ambushes in the woods, or defending a strong point, full well knowing that when shit "popped off" they were going to fire illum, pop the Claymores, and turn night into day, as conduct your assault/ambush without NVDs, 7s will do you just fine. Where 7s begin to show their issues (again, besides simple size and weight, which ultimately we accept again when we decide to use true BNVDs) is during the much faster-paced, moving engagements that have begun to more typify Infantry engagements in modern operating environments--even moving through a city with something as simple as curbs on the streets present a much larger problem when you don't have any depth perception--but your brain thinks it does. The thing that makes PVS-14s less comfortable for many people, and "harder to use" is in fact precisely what makes them "better," as they force you to learn a new way of processing information and your environment to develop a learned depth perception, but that once learned, is remarkably effective--whereas PVS-7s essentially allow you to "fake the funk" by tricking yourself into believing that the information you're receiving and processing is "normal," making them seem easier to use at first, but in fact putting you at a distinct disadvantage to someone using a PVS-14. ~Augee |
|
Quoted:
I didn’t say it was fancy. Just a term people regurgitate to sound informed. Binos are engineered to be collimated, parallel to each other, and that’s great. Show me the person who has the perfect head, and eyes that are perfectly symmetrical to take advantage of that. Sure, everything is “close enough” but it’s not perfect. Just like your ears aren’t perfectly equal on each side of your head. Just like there is adjustments to account for the different strength of each of our eyes there should be for the position too. Because rest assured, your eyes are not in the same position in each side of your skull. To put it another way, if you went to a place that produces NV and had the money to pay for a customized one off, they’d take all kinds of cranial measurements and construct a customer housing or bridge. The glass and everything else would be adjusted specifically to your eye strength and the two tubes would certainly not just be perfectly parallel to each other. Both would probably be off a couple of degrees. View Quote Collimation in the context of dual tube goggles essentially means that the tubes are facing the same way--just like boresighted/collimated clip-on devices, most tubes have a certain amount of native shift to them as light comes in to the tube and then get spit out of the tube. Modern tubes are pretty tight--still not tight enough to be used as clip-ons without boresighting, but tight enough that it's usually not an issue. What you're talking about is the actual physical alignment of the devices/tubes relative to the wearer's individual facial geometry. What collimation addresses is the actual optical axis of the light/image being matched between the two tubes. Alignment being off is actually not a huge problem, as long as the tubes are collimated, because you're still receiving the image along a parallel optical track--it's like looking through the corner of a window instead of through the center--but you can still see the image through the window. Collimation is like if one window pane was bending light one way, while the other was bending it another. Un-collimated binoculars are kind of like being cross-eyed/lazy-eyed. If your left tube has a slight shift that moves the image up and to the left, while your right tube moves the image down and to the right, you can induce a bad "double vision" that your brain will fight mightily to resolve. If it's slight enough, you may not notice it consciously, but your brain will--which is what ultimately translates to eye-strain and fatigue during long-duration use. ~Augee |
|
Quoted: I'm jumping in here a little late... but it seems like the advantages are being pointed out to you, and you're dismissing them. We can throw around jargon all we want--but seeing two slightly different images in either eye is going to have an effect on depth perception. It's a slightly silly exercise that doesn't necessarily prove anything on its own--but can you do "Magic Eye" or other stereograms? Try it with binos, and then try it with a set of PVS-7s... you can resolve the image through NVDs with binos because you're replicating stereoscopic vision, you can't with PVS-7s because you're seeing an identical image in both eyes. The thing to understand about the PVS-7 is that they were invented literally because the Army thought that Infantrymen weren't worth the cost of two tubes. The old PVS-5s were binocular devices, and no one didn't think that binoculars were better--but the thought was that Infantrymen could "get away" with a single tube and cut the cost of NVDs in half, which had its pros and cons--the big pro being the ability to equip more personnel with night vision, the PVS-14 was in turn designed to offer a better solution to the "one tube conceit" that had been established by the PVS-7. Something to consider is that aviators have never used single tube systems, they're moving faster, and dealing with more complex spatial relationships, one has to ask oneself, "why is that?" The question to ask, especially when spending your own money, and not the government's is to look at what folks who don't have to ask "how much" are using and why, rather than the folks who are asking "what can we get away with?" This is not to say we're not all going to be able to afford what those guys are using, but tracing their reasoning back to the source can help you better interrogate your own needs. So, I've been preaching what makes binos better than bioculars, and many may say "sure, duh, they cost upwards of 5-6 times as much as 7s, but what makes 14s better than 7s" besides the weight/form factor? So here goes: In all but the darkest of conditions, the PVS-14 will give you superior depth perception because your unaided eye is still processing some information, though you may not be fully conscious of it. The manual gain controls which allow you to adjust the brightness of the tube will in fact be a great aid in ensuring that you pick up as much supplementary information as possible without your brain being "overwhelmed" by the sensory information from your NV aided eye. In conditions so dark that you can't pick up any supplementary information, using a single tube, you're essentially "on par" with a PVS-7 for depth perception. Nevertheless, some people report the PVS-7s to be comfortable or generally "friendlier" than PVS-14s, what's that all about? IMHO and IME--it's because the PVS-7s are tricking your brain. To a certain extent, this goes back to why the Army thought that PVS-7s were a good idea in the first place, coming off of dual tube goggles. What PVS-7s do is to give both of your eyes an aided NV view through a single, center-mounted tube. You are not a cyclops, and your brain has not evolved to process information like a cyclops. So when you see the split image in front of your eyes, regardless of what you may know about the device intellectually, your brain processes the information as if it was normal stereoscopic vision, because that's the way it's used to processing information. That is to say, your brain "thinks" it's seeing two different images, and tells the rest of your body that "everything's cool, we can see like normal." Because of this, you "feel" more comfortable--and more confident while wearing them. But this is a false sense of confidence, because you do not in fact have the quality of information that your brain thinks you have. This ultimately leads to more injuries and more struggles with movement--I have seen more people take spills, small and large, over relatively easy terrain using PVS-7s than I ever have with PVS-14s or BNVDs. This is because they feel more confident than they "should" be, and they process the information being given to them by their goggles as if it was stereoscopic vision, but it's not, which ultimately leads to more miscalculations, misplaced steps, etc. I've run full tilt into a ditch that I didn't see while wearing PVS-7s, it's not as though I haven't spent time under them--I learned to be a Platoon Leader using them. Now, if you're moving slowly, over fairly familiar and uncomplex terrain, PVS-7s can be fine--for slow and deliberate movements like those of the Cold War Infantry, using NVDs to move to Patrol Bases or lay in ambushes in the woods, or defending a strong point, full well knowing that when shit "popped off" they were going to fire illum, pop the Claymores, and turn night into day, as conduct your assault/ambush without NVDs, 7s will do you just fine. Where 7s begin to show their issues (again, besides simple size and weight, which ultimately we accept again when we decide to use true BNVDs) is during the much faster-paced, moving engagements that have begun to more typify Infantry engagements in modern operating environments--even moving through a city with something as simple as curbs on the streets present a much larger problem when you don't have any depth perception--but your brain thinks it does. The thing that makes PVS-14s less comfortable for many people, and "harder to use" is in fact precisely what makes them "better," as they force you to learn a new way of processing information and your environment to develop a learned depth perception, but that once learned, is remarkably effective--whereas PVS-7s essentially allow you to "fake the funk" by tricking yourself into believing that the information you're receiving and processing is "normal," making them seem easier to use at first, but in fact putting you at a distinct disadvantage to someone using a PVS-14. ~Augee View Quote |
|
|
Quoted: He makes me feel stupid for choosing my 7s over my 14s lol! His logic all makes sense, I guess I need to spend more time behind my 14s View Quote |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.