The main advantage of the A3 is the laser-based illuminator which has less downrange visible signature than the LED-based illuminator on the D2, which is especially important in a “tactical” environment (hunting isn’t really my balliwick, but I understand some animals may spook due to visible signature as well).

Beyond that, the D2 is not only larger and heavier, but IMHO, the “FIRE” button location is ergonomically inferior and less ambidextrous than the DBAL-A3, though I think the ATPIAL is superior to both.

~Augee

Lol...Nice Plant...I'm the one you're  after Mr. "Player". Why don't you get your PenPal in here to show his Mohawk again you said you didn't own but then all of a sudden later in the other thread  you show up with a pic that is somehow in your possession.

Just a "little fun" as you always say.

What it gets down to at the end of the day is that IR aiming lasers, while they can (and I have) be used out to longer distances, where they really shine (pardon the pun), and are most effective for fast-moving engagements at short to intermediate ranges.

The honest fact is that for most civilian/LE use from a "tactical" perspective, at least, engagements outside the practical ranges of Class I laser-based LAMs is really pushing the reasonable PID range of an unmagnified NOD as well, as such my emphasis is always going to be performance within that envelope.

Hunting applications, I recognize can play by slightly different "rules," and the D2 was, to a certain extent designed more specifically for that kind of application in response to the needs of the a different market than the ATPIAL-C and DBAL-A3/I²-SS. The DBAL-D2 is generally larger, heavier, and less ambidextrous, which is fine for what is essentially a hunting "optic," while the others were designed more specifically with military use and applications in mind, and the C1 variants are simply somewhat... "downgraded" to meet C1 power restrictions.

~Augee

I never said that they fall flat on their faces at 75 yards, that's your assessment.

We used to roll hard with CL1 AN/PAQ-4Cs and the blistering illumination of an incandescent Surefire Classic or Millennium filtered through a flip-on IR filter cover, and while later devices were better, it's not as if we were utterly unable to use this setup, nor did we think ourselves limited to 75 yards or less.

What constitutes the "P" in "PID" is going to make a huge difference in what your PID range is--do you need to distinguish between individuals? Uniforms? Weapon systems? Incoming muzzle flashes? Speaking in generalities, however, under most circumstances ~100-150m is going to be the limit that you can adequately determine "friend or foe" with a non-magnified, head-mounted NVD based solely on the image itself absent any other information. Most "ID" beyond that is going to be context clues (e.g., "I'm looking for someone in that direction, and no friendly are supposed to be ahead of this line").

If you're saying that the D2 is better for your purposes, which sounds like it involves "slaying hogs and yotes," then I wouldn't necessarily disagree, because the D2 was built with that in mind. Never said it was a bad unit--you asked why some people seemed to prefer the A3 over the D2, and I answered, it's better designed for tactical use and performs effectively within that envelope, you can argue whether or not those people who opt for the "more tactical" laser really need a tactical laser, but that's a whole other discussion.

Something else to consider is that until fairly recently, the DBAL-D2 cost more than either the ATPIAL-C or DBAL-A3, so that factored into a lot of people's decision making when purchasing A3s over D2s.

None of this should be construed to mean that I think a good IR illuminator is unnecessary or not worth it--this is one of the reasons we're all such big fans of the MAWL-C1+, a laser system that is actually a smidge larger and is less ambidextrous than the ATPIAL-family, but you asked why the A3 was more popular than the D2.

~Augee