MOD-3s sound like a terrific option for this application, much better than bridged PVS-14s, IMHO.

~Augee

This is an opinion that may be valid for some individuals' applications and use.

However, it is not one that is shared by any professional end-users that I am aware of, including ones that prefer the PVS-14 for most use.

Also, the "few ounces" that were alluded to are in the range of 8 ounces and up depending on bridge type, accessories, etc., i.e., starting at about half a pound and going up from there, cantilevered off the front of your face (levers and CGs and all that).

~Augee

Just so you know Munny, the dual optic you mention is made from NV Depot (now NV Devices) and we carry that as well along with the other product the OP mentioned us about.

burst malfunction...

Since I had a three round burst anyways, I may as well highlight the major point...

burst malfunction...

Again, I pointed out that it is a valid option depending on use and application. It's up to each individual person to determine what best meets their needs and at what price point.

IMHO, you cooked your weight comparisons a little bit there to come up with your average:

a) you included the weight of the remote battery pack with the Sentinel ball-detent configuration, however, that's weight that is/can be used as a counterweight (and also, is not necessary depending on what mount you use), however, you used it to raise your "average" system weight. Given that many folks use up to a pound, and sometimes even more of counterweight, if you want to include that in the system weight, you could factor in counterweights for all systems, adding an additional 16 ounces to every other number.

b) you also included MOD-3Bs in a bridged configuration (not a bino configuration), which again, is basically two bridged PVS-14s again, again, "cooking" the aggregate system weight to arrive at a higher "average" weight for dedicated binos.

c) You chose some pig systems like the PVS-15, but chose to omit the RNVGs at 20.1 ounces, DTNVGs at 18.8 ounces, and the PVS-31s -- you even mentioned a lower-weight option, but for whatever reason chose not to factor it into your "average."

d) While it's good that you're happy with the D-14 Lightweight Bridge, others may not ultimately opt to use that bridge mount, and others can be heavier--i.e., you chose a stated "lightweight" option for your comparison, but chose particularly heavy dual systems, and added some red herrings to bring the average closer to your total system weight.

Since the two most direct comparisons are perhaps the MOD-3B and the bridged PVS-14, you're still talking 22 ounces to 28 ounces based on your numbers, i.e., a 6 ounce difference, closer than further from half a pound.

Again, even those systems have different capabilities, so it's not necessarily a direct comparison, and there's still room for some users to prefer one configuration over another.

My issue is not with some people having a preference for bridged PVS-14s over dedicated binos--again, different customers have different needs and priorities, obviously they are both valid options. My issue comes with the statement [as if it were] fact that binos are just a cash grab and have no advantages over bridged PVS-14s.

Also, there are professional end-users that use the MOD-3s, albeit this is much more in the Law Enforcement sector than the military, who are frankly if anything more likely to use bridged PVS-14s out of necessity.

However, for many LE agencies and departments who may not have enough funding to purchase dedicated binos for each officer, but want to be able to use true BNVDs when they can, the MOD-3 is a great option, because they can have the ability to equip every single officer with a monocular if needed, however, given that it is rare that every single officer will ever be on shift and on duty and need NV at once--if it's a small team SWAT deployment, or if only a portion of the force is required, guys can used dedicated BNVDs, instead of having to bridge PVS-14s. Professional end-users doesn't just mean military SOF with huge budgets--many professional end-users, through no fault of their own, may face similar budgetary limitations that commercial customers will, and may have to decide between similar considerations, e.g., splitting a pair of binoculars for another user. The point is not whether they have a huge budget or a little budget, but that they rely on the devices for both their lives and livelihoods.

~Augee

::sigh:: Responses in red.

Quoted:

You really can't be wrong can you?

It's not about being right or wrong. It's about the representation of opinions as they apply to certain uses, users, and applications as irrefutable fact that I take issues with, and that compel me to respond.

The numbers are not cook up, but numbers taken from manufactures sights as well as TNVC. What didn't you like about the Sentinels with the battery pack being 29+ ounces because it's what you run? I did include sentinels without the battery pack and other systems. I think I gave a full range of systems out there and also included Mod3B gain housing and a bridge for reference.

The data has been presented. Readers can decide how they want to approach it. I run a lot of different NODs--my personal opinion is that it is disingenuous to include the weight of the external battery pack in the system weight when we're talking about the amount of weight that hangs off the front of your face, but that is, once again, my personal opinion.  

Each system has their advantages and disadvantages, but it seems like you don't want to admit any of the cons for dedicated binos vs dual 14s. Like it or not facts are facts.

At no point have I refuted that there can be advantages and disadvantages to different setups. In fact, educating consumers as to what they are is literally, as you later point out, my job. We sell a lot of bridge mounts, again, application, use, and users play a tremendous part in determining what those "pros" and "cons" are, but again, I've never said that bridge mounts were useless. In fact, to do so, would be akin to cutting off my nose to spite my face. Again, I refer you back to "opinions being stated as facts," and the fact that I have never said that bridge mounts didn't or couldn't have advantages to different people based on their individual circumstances.

You continually tout the advantages dedicated binos have and constantly say the advantages they have over dual 14s care to point them out that would validate the 2,000-5,000+ cost? Oh that's right pilots aren't issued anything but dedicated bino, yet most of us common folk don't need to read instruments/maps/etc at arms length either. Yeah I know dual 14s and articulating binos PVS15/31/BNVDs can't be truly collimated, but unfortunately there are several larger companies that will have a different opinion than yours.

The advantages of dedicated binos have been discussed a myriad of times, however the response of some has essentially been to say "nuh uh." Accepting that people are different and so is perception and sensory response, I have continued to provide concrete data points which are, as you say "facts," because I respect the fact that you feel that the other advantages that so many end-users and professionals report are still merely opinion.

Lets talk about Mod3 Bravos which do have some play in the way they mount to their bridge which is also not a 100% lock up so wouldn't that also prevent them from being collimated the way that fixed binos are? or is it just because TNVC carries them they're the cats meow?

Isn't it also possible to mark the bridge and 14 housing so that if you where ever to remove them from the bridge it could be realigned to the mount to achieve just as good as a collimated that can be done on PVS15/31/BNVDs that TNVC sells for thousands more?

I'm not sure what to say here besides the fact that it still does not seem like you really understand what is meant by "collimation." The funny thing is that really, collimation is not even that big of a deal with modern tube and housing manufacturing, but again, you and some others have requested objective fact, and dismissed all other professional user feedback as opinion. That's the only reason it comes up so often. It's a data point and little else. That being said, extremely bad misalignment can in fact cause headaches, but again, for most modern devices, unless you draw the short straws of tolerance stacking, are not that bad.

Furthermore, I would just like to point out that I was personally an early adopter of the MOD-3, if you're an ARFCOM Team Member, you can reach back into the archives and find my review of the pre-production MOD-3s from long before I had any affiliation with TNVC, and which I still own. In fact, I upgraded to those early MOD-3s from a... wait for it, bridged PVS-14 setup.

If weight is such a hot button for you why are you not constantly promoting or never mentioning the extremely light weight mini BNVD-SG that JRH Enterprises carry but TNVC doesn't????

Weight is not a hot button issue for me... however, the weight difference was characterized as by the member to whom I initially responded as being "a few ounces." English is a funny language, a "few" is hard to define precisely, but to my mind, at least, it suggests "negligible," or at very least... less than a half-dozen. So I pointed out that the definition of "a few" was likely to be subjective.

Vis-a-vis the Mini BNVD-SG, as has already been pointed out, we do have the full Night Vision Devices product line available to our customers, however, as they are not a regular inventory item, they've simply not yet been added to the website, while the "legacy" BNVDs were added years ago, and we continue to receive active contracts for, they're still up because there's no sense in taking them down. It's not some conspiracy.

Beyond that, even among our other offerings, weight is not a primary factor, it is simply a factor to consider in choosing goggles. I am not the one latching on to specific data points, I'd like to think I try to give a good overall assessment of products as complete systems, but I suppose that too is a subjective matter of opinion.

Just a note I'm not calling out TNVC as a company in a whole since most of them are good people with more than fair market prices, but since you're a representative of them you're speaking on their behalf which is why I reference their prices and offerings.

I do appreciate the recognition that I am but a single employee and representative.

Again, ultimately both my role and goal is to educate first and foremost, and that's not a platitude--I have been a professional educator for longer than I have been a professional member of the "tactical industry."

As many (but not all) here may know, this is really more a continuation of discussions that have been going on for a long time in this sub-forum, it's not something that has escalated suddenly over the course of a couple of posts in this particular thread. As such, there seem to be certain data points and points of friction and contention that keep getting returned to over and over as a result of a long-running point and counter-point discussion that has caused certain issues to appear more important than they are because they keep getting brought up--the important point is to look at all of these products and devices as complete systems with different advantages and disadvantages relative to one another, and determine which one best meets your individual needs.

~Augee

We've been around this mulberry bush several times, but here's one:

A single set of controls that control both tubes/the whole device (I've also noted when the topic's come up, I don't like dual gain binos, but that's a conversation for a different time). In terms of utility to the end user? Big performance advantage, IMHO. That alone is enough without starting factor in weight or other considerations--which is all also assuming that, per your scenario, you managed to get two PVS-14s with perfectly matched tubes.

Not impossible, hell, we specifically note that an advantage of buying your unit from us, is that we can match your tubes later on down the road, versus buying two units from random sources and hoping the tubes are well matched. Then again, I've used an OMNI VII bridged to an OMNI III. Not ideal, but I've never been a huge tube spec snob. Still not. Specs are important, but they're not the be all, end all either. Once again--the system as a whole.

And roger, I get that having a single set of controls may not be important to some users, but from a professional end-user standpoint, it's a human engineering and interface factor that makes the device easier to use. Why do you think, despite how I may personally feel about the specific functionality of some of them, that so many devices have various forms of automatic shut-off and activation built into them to continue to make them even more user-friendly? Dedicated binoculars are designed... to be used as binoculars, so while the different housings may have different features, they're all built with design considerations that take into account being used as binoculars. PVS-14s are not designed to be used bridged, it just happens to be that they can be based on their design. It doesn't mean that it's the best solution, but it does work.

Again, not important to you? Feel bridged PVS-14s still have an advantage for you? No problem. Hey, like you said, it's an opinion, based on my use and my experiences.

Finally, I'm not quite sure where you're getting your numbers from... $2-5,000 difference?

Our L3 UF WP PVS-14s are $4,020 each. Two of them are $8,040. We sell some expensive bridges, but since you apparently have a clear preference for your D-14 Lightweight Bridge, let's go with that, I'm seeing $350 from a quick Google search. Other than that, all of these are our (TNVC) retail prices.

So, a set of bridged PVS-14s at new retail with L3 UF WP tubes? $8,390.

Starting with our most affordable binos with L3 UF WP tubes, our RNVGs are $8,526. That's $136 more than bridged PVS-14s with similar performance tubes.

Oh, but PVS-14s have manual gain! I don't think manual gain is that important on BNVDs, but sure. And while we're at it, let's address the fact that you can use them as modular systems. MOD-3B Dual Gain, L3 UF WP: $9,245 so, you're at an $855 difference. Getting more substantial, for sure, but still, nowhere near your price range estimate.

But wait, there's more. Let's take the most expensive single set of traditional-format BNVDs that we can openly sell to any U.S. citizen, so excepting things like the PVS-21s or PVS-31s, etc. DTNVGs with L3 UF WP tubes: $9,900 Okay, so now we're "up there." With a difference of $1,510.

Unless you're military or LE, $1,510 is the greatest difference between a set of dedicated binos we sell, and bridging together two PVS-14s with similar tubes using the bridge of your choosing, not mine. So, not even at the bottom end of what you're claiming is the price difference between dedicated binos and bridged PVS-14s. Make that a Wilcox or RQE bridge? You cost difference is gone.

Oh, but such and such company sells binos with Photonis tubes for this price, so I can get them much cheaper... Okay. We don't carry those, no biggie. There are others who do, and consequently sell binos at appropriate pricing with those tubes. The prices may not be the same, but I'd be willing to bet the differences are pretty close.

Oh, but I can buy used PVS-14s on the EE even cheaper than Photonis tubes from a dealer...

I mean... I'm pretty sure there's a set of AVS-6 ANVIS still sitting on the EE for $4,000 with the full support package including AI mount, battery pack, etc. If it's not still there, it sold recently, and it's a good, but by no means an unprecedented deal. You wanna compare used to used... there's some pretty good deals out there on used binos, too.

I mean, if you want to talk gray market PVS-31s, sure... you can pay well over $13,390 (and likely more) for 'em (your upper range of $5,000 from a set of bridged PVS-14s), but I've never recommended or advocated for folks to buy 'em, and as good as it could potentially be for our bottom line, as it stands right now, we couldn't sell them right now for that or any other price to an individual even if we wanted to (see the RNVG vs. Sentinel post for a small taste of my thoughts on the 31s in general anyways...).

~Augee

Yeah, man, definitely what I said.

I think folks can read well enough to make up their own minds. Until next time, I’m sure, cheers brother!

You can build your own binos too if you wanna go that route.



~Augee

Interesting thread...Subject matter of dual PVS-14's having a power source and/or a dedicated battery pack? I think CJ7Hawk found an interesting device HERE

The Echo tubes are NOT 4G INTENS period and they don't hold a candle to L3 filmless. I get the sales hype and the low prices, but when it's dark out there, (what using NV is all about), the L3 filmless shines well.

Sorry this is all news to me. Lasting longer? 10K hrs of all Gen3 inlcuding filmless which by the way are the toughest out there and are tougher than standard thin film. This was another reason the filmless was awarded the Omni 8 contract.

This is not hearsay...