User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 12:55:12 PM EDT
[#1]
I was wondering when SOMEONE was going to do this. The UTM has been out for years, and the ability to run it in any configuration is what set it apart from everything else out there. Now that there is a consumer variant this should be the first stop on everyone's thermal list.
I'll be getting one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 1:00:20 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was wondering when SOMEONE was going to do this. The UTM has been out for years, and the ability to run it in any configuration is what set it apart from everything else out there. Now that there is a consumer variant this should be the first stop on everyone's thermal list. I'll be getting one. Agreed. When we first got briefed on the program awhile ago, this was my first thought. The versatility brings it up to a whole new level. Add to the fact, it's entirely made in the USA and verified! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 1:04:56 PM EDT
[#3]
Any idea how much lighter it will be after the extra machining?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 1:09:01 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any idea how much lighter it will be after the extra machining? Not as yet, but that was and is a top priority for me as well and the IR Defense folks are well aware to keep this as light as possible. Weight reductions are in work at the moment. Every ounce counts.... 
Vic |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 1:13:43 PM EDT
[#5]
I like the idea of these being versatile, however it appears that if your buy the $5000 version it can neither be helmet mounted or or weapon mounted. Is this correct or do they plan to revise the offering so the cheaper model can do more than just function as a hand held?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 1:23:32 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like the idea of these being versatile, however it appears that if your buy the $5000 version it can neither be helmet mounted or or weapon mounted. Is this correct or do they plan to revise the offering so the cheaper model can do more than just function as a hand held? Correct, for folks who just want a hand held unit only, was the price point plan to keep it at the lowest price possible vs. the hand held only competition. Nothing out there with this kind of resolution and performance meets this price point IMHO in a hand held monocular configuration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 1:30:25 PM EDT
[#7]
This is an EPIC device in the consumer market space.
My biggest "gripe" would be the Digital Focus Control (DFC). I really wish they'd have at least the option for manual focus. Of course, a 19mm lens and tiny sensor pitch should provide a substantial DOF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 1:38:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is an EPIC device in the consumer market space. My biggest "gripe" would be the Digital Focus Control (DFC). I really wish they'd have at least the option for manual focus. Of course, a 19mm lens and tiny sensor pitch should provide a substantial DOF. That's what the specs say. Vic said manual focus front and rear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 1:42:47 PM EDT
[#9]
excited to try this out with my mod armory mount and a PVS14.......
Hopefully the dovetail is mounted a similar length from the rear lense as a PVS would be with a DDA or a MA bridge adapter....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 1:44:41 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's what the specs say. Vic said manual focus front and rear. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is an EPIC device in the consumer market space. My biggest "gripe" would be the Digital Focus Control (DFC). I really wish they'd have at least the option for manual focus. Of course, a 19mm lens and tiny sensor pitch should provide a substantial DOF. That's what the specs say. Vic said manual focus front and rear. Rear diopter focus same as the MK II IR Hunter and the front lens focus will be in the 1-3 foot to infinity arena. Exact numbers are still being calculated. The DFC allows for finer edge focus as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 1:59:33 PM EDT
[#11]
Looks like ill cross the m18 off the list. This looks like a really great option, and for half the price holy cow.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 2:03:50 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
excited to try this out with my mod armory mount and a PVS14....... Hopefully the dovetail is mounted a similar length from the rear lense as a PVS would be with a DDA or a MA bridge adapter....... There IS another bridge mount from Wilcox with adapters we hope to show from Shot.
Vic |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 2:21:46 PM EDT
[#13]
Looks like it could really benefit from a remote battery pack for helmet mounting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 2:43:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is an EPIC device in the consumer market space. My biggest "gripe" would be the Digital Focus Control (DFC). I really wish they'd have at least the option for manual focus. Of course, a 19mm lens and tiny sensor pitch should provide a substantial DOF. My guess is the DFC would provide additional sharpness and edge resolution/contrast since this unit supposedly has an objective Manual focus as well as a diopter focus. Deciding whether to pre order now or see if they have a SHOT special on pricing. Hey Horta are you going to the SHOT show? Maybe I can have someone pick me one up. Assuming of course If I can sell my 7 thermal cams before then!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 2:46:41 PM EDT
[#15]
Anyone know when they plan to start shipping?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 2:53:48 PM EDT
[#16]
After seeing CTM1's and Horta's experiments with thermal monoculars and PVS-14's/ PSQ-20's, I'm really curious how this unit will work dual tube config with a PVS-14.
I'll wait and see the reviews and what the final product can do, but if it works out I'll definitely show my local PD this for that kind of price. I'm liking the M-250 so far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 3:40:45 PM EDT
[#17]
So if you want helmet mountable, the 250 is the minimum. If you want the option for clip on, and in-unit reticles, you need the 300.
Is this correct? Can the "base" 300 be adapted after the fact to helmet or weapon mount? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 3:55:20 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if you want helmet mountable, the 250 is the minimum. If you want the option for clip on, and in-unit reticles, you need the 300. Is this correct? Can the "base" 300 be adapted after the fact to helmet or weapon mount? Correct and yes the 300 can be adapted for either and since we are a Wilcox distributor we sell all the necessary mounting hardware. Thank you. Vic |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 3:55:45 PM EDT
[#19]
Updated Page 6 with the official Press Release. Thanks guys.
Vic |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 4:07:53 PM EDT
[#20]
TNVC - How does this new monocular compare to the LS64 with the led display, 35mm lens, and 17um core?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 4:15:27 PM EDT
[#21]
Why not a polymer housing?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 4:59:23 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
TNVC - How does this new monocular compare to the LS64 with the led display, 35mm lens, and 17um core? I'd fairly confidently wager to say that it would eat the LS64 for breakfast and ask for seconds. I think they are in totally different ballparks as far as performance, value, features, etc. this IR Patrol device is more in the realm of competition to the highest end Flir M18 monoculars which cost roughly double or more. Not to say Flir has bad products but they have had a virtual monopoly on the consumer monocular and scope market for quite a while and I think this unit may Be a game changer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 5:26:27 PM EDT
[#23]
Man, IR Defense is seriously rocking the thermal world right now! These new patrol models are oozing with features, performance and quality.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 5:31:53 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not a polymer housing? They probably didn't want to front the cost of expensive injection mold tools being a relatively new company (you'd probably be talking at least $50-$100k+ in tooling). Going with a machined aluminum housing is more expensive per part, but they can readily adapt and evolve the design as needed or due to unforeseen circumstances, however to modify a injection mold would be incredibly more expensive. I think the anodized aluminum also makes for a nice expensive look and feel.. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 5:41:35 PM EDT
[#25]
Wow. Color me impressed
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 5:43:03 PM EDT
[#26]
Heck, I bet skypup is even secretly considering buying one of these units. Though I don't know if he would ever admit it
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 6:10:34 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not a polymer housing? Good question. This was and is the biggest weakness of the PVS-14...It's housing. NOT going to get into the recoil debate of this or that, but I have reported over several years 2 housings broke on .308's. We've seen all the marketing tricks with metal lens locking rings, etc but the housing on the PVS-14 are VERY thin plastic and should only be used on guns 6.8SPC and below (L3 Omni 8 tubes). The IR Patrol has to perform multiple duties, and this includes true weapon mounting on .308 guns and has to take the rigors of shock along with a multitude of other scenarios. Along with outstanding performance, it has to survive it's versatility of function in many scenarios and a machined aluminum housing gives it the best opportunity to survive that test of time! Hope this helps. Vic |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 6:31:58 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
TNVC - How does this new monocular compare to the LS64 with the led display, 35mm lens, and 17um core? As Flyboy101 mentioned, this unit REALLY is a game changer IMHO opinion. Besides the increase in image performance over 17um, the sheer versatility of this unit is genus for what it's going to do.
Vic |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 6:51:26 PM EDT
[#29]
OLED displays are also IMHO far superior to LCD displays. Most higher end L3, BAE, and even FLIR equipment use OLED screens.
Edit: I guess the LS-64 has OLED too... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 7:41:39 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good question. This was and is the biggest weakness of the PVS-14...It's housing. NOT going to get into the recoil debate of this or that, but I have reported over several years 2 housings broke on .308's. We've seen all the marketing tricks with metal lens locking rings, etc but the housing on the PVS-14 are VERY thin plastic and should only be used on guns 6.8SPC and below (L3 Omni 8 tubes). The IR Patrol has to perform multiple duties, and this includes true weapon mounting on .308 guns and has to take the rigors of shock along with a multitude of other scenarios. Along with outstanding performance, it has to survive it's versatility of function in many scenarios and a machined aluminum housing gives it the best opportunity to survive that test of time! Hope this helps. Vic Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why not a polymer housing? Good question. This was and is the biggest weakness of the PVS-14...It's housing. NOT going to get into the recoil debate of this or that, but I have reported over several years 2 housings broke on .308's. We've seen all the marketing tricks with metal lens locking rings, etc but the housing on the PVS-14 are VERY thin plastic and should only be used on guns 6.8SPC and below (L3 Omni 8 tubes). The IR Patrol has to perform multiple duties, and this includes true weapon mounting on .308 guns and has to take the rigors of shock along with a multitude of other scenarios. Along with outstanding performance, it has to survive it's versatility of function in many scenarios and a machined aluminum housing gives it the best opportunity to survive that test of time! Hope this helps. Vic Sell every unit with a suppressor. Recoil problem solved! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 7:53:58 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sell every unit with a suppressor. Recoil problem solved! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why not a polymer housing? Good question. This was and is the biggest weakness of the PVS-14...It's housing. NOT going to get into the recoil debate of this or that, but I have reported over several years 2 housings broke on .308's. We've seen all the marketing tricks with metal lens locking rings, etc but the housing on the PVS-14 are VERY thin plastic and should only be used on guns 6.8SPC and below (L3 Omni 8 tubes). The IR Patrol has to perform multiple duties, and this includes true weapon mounting on .308 guns and has to take the rigors of shock along with a multitude of other scenarios. Along with outstanding performance, it has to survive it's versatility of function in many scenarios and a machined aluminum housing gives it the best opportunity to survive that test of time! Hope this helps. Vic Sell every unit with a suppressor. Recoil problem solved! Hmmm maybe...Felt recoil energy is on the optic does not change much on the delta curves.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 8:08:06 PM EDT
[#32]
For the clip-on capable models, will they do ok with 4x magnification? This looks promising.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 2:09:39 AM EDT
[#33]
I can't wait to see video from all of these monoculars along with a demo of all the features and modes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 11:12:55 AM EDT
[#34]
Saw it posted on SSD this morning.
http://soldiersystems.net/2014/12/24/tnvc-ir-defense-corporation-ir-patrol-thermal-monoculars/ If i had a need (or cash) for a thermal is definitely get one of these. I'm just waiting for prices to keep coming down in these types of units. I wish I2 was on the same curve. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 12:46:07 PM EDT
[#35]
Have an IR Hunter Mk II 35mm on order for hog hunting, but now very torn between sticking with it or getting the IR Patrol M300W instead.
Ideally would like to be able to quickly switch between monocular/clip-on weapon sight, and being able to keep my existing EoTech EXPS3-2 mounted would be an added bonus (not sure if the M300W w/ Wilcox mount would be the correct height? -the EXPS3 series are 7mm higher than the regular EoTechs due to the QR mount). I know the IR Hunter Mk II would not work with my Eotech. Downside of the Patrol would be that I would lose the magnification of the Mk II's 35mm lens for longer-range shots (I'm guessing keeping my Vortex VMX-3T flip-down magnifier mounted behind my Eotech wouldn't work either). Curious to see how easy/fast it is to clip on/off the Patrol vs the Hunter Mk II. Hrrrmmmm. Any thoughts/opinions/suggestions to tip me in either direction are welcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 1:04:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have an IR Hunter Mk II 35mm on order for hog hunting, but now very torn between sticking with it or getting the IR Patrol M300W instead. Ideally would like to be able to quickly switch between monocular/clip-on weapon sight, and being able to keep my existing EoTech EXPS3-2 mounted would be an added bonus (not sure if the M300W w/ Wilcox mount would be the correct height? -the EXPS3 series are 7mm higher than the regular EoTechs due to the QR mount). I know the IR Hunter Mk II would not work with my Eotech. Downside of the Patrol would be that I would lose the magnification of the Mk II's 35mm lens for longer-range shots (I'm guessing keeping my Vortex VMX-3T flip-down magnifier mounted behind my Eotech wouldn't work either). Curious to see how easy/fast it is to clip on/off the Patrol vs the Hunter Mk II. Hrrrmmmm. Any thoughts/opinions/suggestions to tip me in either direction are welcome. I am of the mind set that the IR Patrol is going to shine in the main role it was designed for (a handheld/helmet mounted viewer). Switching optics in the dark under hunting conditions is not ideal. The ideal set up I have found would be a 640 handheld for spotting, PVS-14 for general observation and nav, PVS-22 for positive ID and shooting, ir laser for shooting and pointing targets for hunting partners.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 1:11:18 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have an IR Hunter Mk II 35mm on order for hog hunting, but now very torn between sticking with it or getting the IR Patrol M300W instead. Ideally would like to be able to quickly switch between monocular/clip-on weapon sight, and being able to keep my existing EoTech EXPS3-2 mounted would be an added bonus (not sure if the M300W w/ Wilcox mount would be the correct height? -the EXPS3 series are 7mm higher than the regular EoTechs due to the QR mount). I know the IR Hunter Mk II would not work with my Eotech. Downside of the Patrol would be that I would lose the magnification of the Mk II's 35mm lens for longer-range shots (I'm guessing keeping my Vortex VMX-3T flip-down magnifier mounted behind my Eotech wouldn't work either). Curious to see how easy/fast it is to clip on/off the Patrol vs the Hunter Mk II. Hrrrmmmm. Any thoughts/opinions/suggestions to tip me in either direction are welcome. I'm in the same boat. I'm going to stick with the IR hunter 35mm. Having looked through a handheld unit, I belive my best bet is the IR hunter 35. I can scan the horizon with it. My main means of walking will be with a pair of pvs-14s. Dave at IR defense spoke with me and said that he rigs up his IR hunter on a handle with picatinny rail. That way, he uses it as a handheld unit. My frustration of using a pulsar HD38a, is that it's ok for scanning, but you can't walk around with it on you eye. Just too awkward. That's just my opinion. Having not used the patrol, I bet it's better in clarity. I think I'll be happy with just the IR hunter MkII |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 2:11:38 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heck, I bet skypup is even secretly considering buying one of these units. Though I don't know if he would ever admit it I'm still waiting on my FLIR GS M-24 for helmet mount, but this looks very good indeed, what is the FOV on it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 2:50:54 PM EDT
[#39]
Anyone else but TheHorta and I thinking of this: buy 2 of the helmet mounted version and configure for binocular operation. You would only then be up around the cost of a single Flir M18
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 2:56:56 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still waiting on my FLIR GS M-24 for helmet mount, but this looks very good indeed, what is the FOV on it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Heck, I bet skypup is even secretly considering buying one of these units. Though I don't know if he would ever admit it I'm still waiting on my FLIR GS M-24 for helmet mount, but this looks very good indeed, what is the FOV on it? FOV is apparently 22 degrees and right at about 1x magnification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 2:57:59 PM EDT
[#41]
Yea, there's a few configs I can think of, but curious to see if they would actually work.
Head mount options: Dual IR Patrols = probably the highest resolution stereo thermal view we could get as civvies. And as Horta discovered, one unit could be in White Hot or Black Hot, the other in outline mode for various applications. One IR Patrol + PVS-14 = a sort of fusion system, especially with the IR patrol in outline mode Really curious about how it might actually work out. So, when are they going to make a 640x480 thermal clip on for our PVS-14's? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 3:03:27 PM EDT
[#42]
It would really be slick if they threaded the ocular for the future possibility of adding an extender lens.... That would be icing on the cake and it wouldn't add much if any manufacturing cost to the unit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 3:05:57 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have an IR Hunter Mk II 35mm on order for hog hunting, but now very torn between sticking with it or getting the IR Patrol M300W instead. Ideally would like to be able to quickly switch between monocular/clip-on weapon sight, and being able to keep my existing EoTech EXPS3-2 mounted would be an added bonus (not sure if the M300W w/ Wilcox mount would be the correct height? -the EXPS3 series are 7mm higher than the regular EoTechs due to the QR mount). I know the IR Hunter Mk II would not work with my Eotech. Downside of the Patrol would be that I would lose the magnification of the Mk II's 35mm lens for longer-range shots (I'm guessing keeping my Vortex VMX-3T flip-down magnifier mounted behind my Eotech wouldn't work either). Curious to see how easy/fast it is to clip on/off the Patrol vs the Hunter Mk II. Hrrrmmmm. Any thoughts/opinions/suggestions to tip me in either direction are welcome. Clip ons in front of true 1x optics kind of... Suck. Very limited FOV Add a 3x mag and its a little better, or change to an Elcan or a 1-4/6/8x scope and it's also much better. For weapon mounted I would stick with the Hunter. I have a clip on thermal and will be getting a patrol for handheld duty to supplement the clip on and my binos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 3:06:33 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would really be slick if they threaded the ocular for the future possibility of adding an extender lens.... That would be icing on the cake and it wouldn't add much if any manufacturing cost to the unit. I was hoping that would be a feature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 3:18:29 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone else but TheHorta and I thinking of this: buy 2 of the helmet mounted version and configure for binocular operation. You would only then be up around the cost of a single Flir M18 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone else but TheHorta and I thinking of this: buy 2 of the helmet mounted version and configure for binocular operation. You would only then be up around the cost of a single Flir M18 Been there, done that. Asked for pricing on this a couple of days ago. How much is a dual unit going to cost me? http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_18/437366_IR_Patrol_Thermal_Monocular_Reviews_and_Updates_and_Images.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 3:57:50 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would really be slick if they threaded the ocular for the future possibility of adding an extender lens.... That would be icing on the cake and it wouldn't add much if any manufacturing cost to the unit. Yes it sure would be. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 3:58:12 PM EDT
[#47]
Arghhh....Server lag!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 4:42:34 PM EDT
[#48]
So, how much is the aftermarket mounting hardware you mentioned, OP - should one go with the base model Patrol monocular?
I can't afford one right now, regardless. But, it'd sure be something I'd save for - at least, if it all didn't approach the price of the $7K model that is. 
If it does, I'll just need to get by with my PVS-14/EOTech combo (and convince myself I'm happy about it!).
*You guys are sure making some impressive stuff! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 7:16:39 PM EDT
[#49]
L4 G24 from Wilcox is $449.00
Flip to the side mount is $331.66 
We will be offering packages with good savings with the above mounts once we the Patrols are released.
Vic |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 8:10:30 PM EDT
[#50]
That is Super!
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
