Order some and find out

OP, it looks like the occular assembly in question was missing some of the coatings, did you observe that as well?

Yes and it’s mentioned in the OP I think

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.

Awaiting company to issue mil spec evidence or apology.

Ost

What about the plastic piece vs aluminum and the lack of cross compatibility OP brought up?

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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".

I also have a question about this piece.

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.

Attached File

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.                      

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.

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?

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

And no mil-spec anti reflective film coating

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?

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.

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?

Nice to see you respond with your proof.

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.

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.

this thread belongs in GD.

Yep. 100% agree on basically all points.

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.
Attached File

Attached File

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...
Attached File


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


/thread

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.



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.

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.

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.

Damn commie ammo eating bastard gun.....    
Just trying to bring a little levity to this thread

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

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.

Below you can see a spot of glue at 2-o-clock from where they used glue to seal the spanner
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.
Attached File

Are the Carson and Apache optic cells the same weight?

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.

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)

   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

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.

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