Night Vision Collimating dual pvs14

jeffl838

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 20, 2013
869
379
Pulled the trigger on 2x pvs14’s in a tnvc npm bridge. It’s actually not bad but they certainly are not 31’s. I actually prefer them over 15’s because they articulate more and less clumsily.

anyways, is there a way I can collimate these? Or at least check collimation myself? Reading two different things. Some say you can’t do it, some say give me money and I’ll do it for you.

I’d say they’re probably a little off? Maybe? I can certainly live with it but if it’s something that can be done, might as well do it.
 
@jeff838. IMHO a set of bridged 14's are superior to a set of 31's in every respect except one. Weight. However I will take that weight all day because of the significant advantages 2 properly bridged 14's offer.

1. They have a diopter that lets you adjust the unit to different peoples eyes instead of a PVS 31 which have to be set for a particular persons eyesight and are not easily adjustable.

2. No way for a user to adjust tension on the 31 pivot point. If it gets sloppy it has to go back to L3 or authorized service personnel to adjust/service.

3. Bridged 14's each have their own individual power supply. The chances of 2 going down at the same time are almost impossible. With 31's you loose it all if you have a power issue.

4. You only get about 15 hours run time out of the onboard battery in PVS 31. You have to go to an external 4 battery setup to get about 50 hours run time. PVS 14's run about 40 to 50 hours each on a single battery.

5. PVS 14's have an on board illuminator for emergencies, PVS 31's do not.

6. PVS 31's have a Single gain manual adjustment whereas you can manually adjust the gain of each PVS 14 independently. For example you might have the left 14 gain wide open, but purposefully turn the gain down on the right eye so as to preserve your natural night vision. This has significant implications in certain situation.

7. Good luck as a civilian getting L3 to service 31's

Regarding collimation. It is my understanding that the tube is actually collimated to the individual PVS 14 system. Bridged Tubes are not really collimated to each others alignment within the bridge system.

Regarding Bridges. IMHO the Mod Armory Light weight is the better bridge to use for several reasons.

1. The TNVC "alignment rings" prevent you from properly installing a COTI. The Mod Armory Light Weight does not.

2. There is no way to adjust the tension on the pivot points on the TNVC NPB, whereas it takes but a second to increase or decrease tension on the Mod Bridge pivot points via the shoulder bolts.

3. The Mod Armory Bridges all have 2 positions to mount the Dovetail which gives you way more adjustment Fore & Aft than the TNVC NPB.

4. The Mod Armory Light Weight Bridge is slightly lighter than the TNVC NPB

5. The Mod Armory Bridges can all be quickly adapted to be used to run a single PVS 14 by taking out and removing the other arm so you can make a really slick single 14 mount out of them if you want to. You can run just one on the TNVC NPB but you will always have the "alignment ring" and arm dangling in the way.

6. There is no way to mount a small thermal on the TNVC NPB whereas it is easily accomplished on all the Mod Bridges.

7. Mod Armory will collimate for free a set of PVS 14s if you buy one of their Bridge Mounts. Just send your 14's to them and they will collimate them.

There has been many threads on NV forums where certain people have thrown out a whole bunch of information claiming all kinds of stuff about dedicated Binos wont give you headaches vs bridged 14's will because of collimation. Most of it appears to be bunk. Hecque, whether a dedicated bino or bridge, you are using hangers to hang pods. So the alignment of the hangers in relationship to the cross member has to be designed and built accurate no matter what system you use.

I know of 8 sets of bridged 14's in my immediate buddy group. Not the first person has ever complained about having headaches due to bridged 14's. They are all running correctly built factory units that apparently were collimated pretty darn good when they received them. I have sent a couple of sets of used 14's I purchased off to Mod Armory and had them collimate them just to make sure they were good to go. Slapped them puppies on a Light Weight Bridge and ran the snot out of them.

So there is my bridged 14 bigot rant. You could not give me a set of dedicated Binos, weeeeeell maybe if you twisted my arm. :LOL:
 
Last edited:
I have bridged 14s in an rqe bridge, 14s in a Mod Armory lightweight, 15s, and 31s.

The 15s do a few things I like, and the MOD bridge does things I like, and the RQE does things I like. And the 31s are light.

My absolutely had to keep it rig is 2 Ultralight PVS-14 White Phosphor (PVS-14 Omegas) in the RQE with a Flir Breach on the side that I can swap one eye for.
That is a very informative & enlightening post from someone whom owns all those systems in addition to undoubtedly being a very seasoned, knowledgeable and experienced user. Thank you for sharing your assessment. Much noted and appreciated.

I plan on purchasing a set of NVD Ultra Light PVS 14's in WP high spec at some point in the future. Just a selfish "treat" to myself. :) Yes you pay a premium for arguably, a marginal performance increase, but like I said, a "treat".

I have studied them for a while and think they would also make an outstanding system due to weight reduction and the ability to pair with the Breach as they are just about the same weight.
 
Yes you can.

You need a few things:

Arca style tripod.
100mm tripod plate.
90 degree u-bolt (shaped like a whiskey glass and not a U. has 90 degree angles in it)
Collimating Target

mount the nods bridge upside down on the arca plate and put it on the tripod.

set your interpupillary distance.

point at collimating target and adjust direction of PVS-14s until collimated.

Whack unit on door 2 nights later, fucking up collimation and repeat.

Keeping collimation is something that pvs-14s in a bridge suck at.

The collimation target has concentric circles that continue increasing in size, with two crosshairs in the center. You move the collimation until the outermost ring of the circles that are in your pvs-14s field of view are showing perfect remainders.

The two sets of circles are spaced for your IP, hence it being a custom target that we make here.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I really appreciate it.

So the TNVC bridge doesn't seem to have an attachment point that would be compatible with an 100mm tripod plate. What would you think about setting IP and sandwiching it into a HOG saddle?

Is something like this what you mean by collimating target? https://britastro.org/sites/default/files/field/image/Figure 2_7.jpg

When you say two two crosshairs in the center, what do you mean? I found a few different things online, but if I understand the concept of collimation, any target that can help me orient the tubes to one fixed point should work, right? What distance would you set between the tubes and the collimation target? I assume ideally it would be infinity, would say 20ft suffice, in your opinion?

The TNVC mount would seem to be great at holding collimation... but unfortunately these tube holdy things in the front don't seem to be adjustable. I'll check collimation via targets first and see how gross of an adjustment needs to be made before I start fucking with it. Thanks again for the advice man.
 
@jeff838. IMHO a set of bridged 14's are superior to a set of 31's in every respect except one. Weight. However I will take that weight all day because of the significant advantages 2 properly bridged 14's offer.

1. They have a diopter that lets you adjust the unit to different peoples eyes instead of a PVS 31 which have to be set for a particular persons eyesight and are not easily adjustable.

2. No way for a user to adjust tension on the 31 pivot point. If it gets sloppy it has to go back to L3 or authorized service personnel to adjust/service.

3. Bridged 14's each have their own individual power supply. The chances of 2 going down at the same time are almost impossible. With 31's you loose it all if you have a power issue.

4. You only get about 15 hours run time out of the onboard battery in PVS 31. You have to go to an external 4 battery setup to get about 50 hours run time. PVS 14's run about 40 to 50 hours each on a single battery.

5. PVS 14's have an on board illuminator for emergencies, PVS 31's do not.

6. PVS 31's have a Single gain manual adjustment whereas you can manually adjust the gain of each PVS 14 independently. For example you might have the left 14 gain wide open, but purposefully turn the gain down on the right eye so as to preserve your natural night vision. This has significant implications in certain situation.

7. Good luck as a civilian getting L3 to service 31's

Regarding collimation. It is my understanding that the tube is actually collimated to the individual PVS 14 system. Bridged Tubes are not really collimated to each others alignment within the bridge system.

Regarding Bridges. IMHO the Mod Armory Light weight is the better bridge to use for several reasons.

1. The TNVC "alignment rings" prevent you from properly installing a COTI. The Mod Armory Light Weight does not.

2. There is no way to adjust the tension on the pivot points on the TNVC NPB, whereas it takes but a second to increase or decrease tension on the Mod Bridge pivot points via the shoulder bolts.

3. The Mod Armory Bridges all have 2 positions to mount the Dovetail which gives you way more adjustment Fore & Aft than the TNVC NPB.

4. The Mod Armory Light Weight Bridge is slightly lighter than the TNVC NPB

5. The Mod Armory Bridges can all be quickly adapted to be used to run a single PVS 14 by taking out and removing the other arm so you can make a really slick single 14 mount out of them if you want to. You can run just one on the TNVC NPB but you will always have the "alignment ring" and arm dangling in the way.

6. There is no way to mount a small thermal on the TNVC NPB whereas it is easily accomplished on all the Mod Bridges.

7. Mod Armory will collimate for free a set of PVS 14s if you buy one of their Bridge Mounts. Just send your 14's to them and they will collimate them.

There has been many threads on NV forums where certain people have thrown out a whole bunch of information claiming all kinds of stuff about dedicated Binos wont give you headaches vs bridged 14's will because of collimation. Most of it appears to be bunk. Hecque, whether a dedicated bino or bridge, you are using hangers to hang pods. So the alignment of the hangers in relationship to the cross member has to be designed and built accurate no matter what system you use.

I know of 8 sets of bridged 14's in my immediate buddy group. Not the first person has ever complained about having headaches due to bridged 14's. They are all running correctly built factory units that apparently were collimated pretty darn good when they received them. I have sent a couple of sets of used 14's I purchased off to Mod Armory and had them collimate them just to make sure they were good to go. Slapped them puppies on a Light Weight Bridge and ran the snot out of them.

So there is my bridged 14 bigot rant. You could not give me a set of dedicated Binos, weeeeeell maybe if you twisted my arm. :LOL:
I am very familiar with the 15's and 31's and would certainly much prefer 31's over these bridged 14's with the exception being in the department of serviceability. These 14's (and definitely 15's) are more durable though and probably wouldn't need much servicing to begin with.

A battery life hack i used with 31's was running a battery pack but with the battery back disconnected. I would use the 31 onboard power until the light flashes, which I think is supposed to be a 15 minute indicator? And then I'd just give her a plug. I have had nights where I drained a new onboard lithium from like less than 10 hours of use. The battery pack batteries I'd replace when the strobe started not being visible to the naked eye. Definitely saved a lot of batteries that way.

The coti I've used clamped around the objective adjusting ring my 31's. Do not all coti's do that? I was planning on getting a coti down the line.
 
The coti I've used clamped around the objective adjusting ring my 31's. Do not all coti's do that? I was planning on getting a coti down the line.

On a PVS 14 the COTI mounting bracket is supposed to be clamped around the Objective Lens Locking Ring. That area is occupied by the TNVC NPB ring if that Bridge is used.

I stated: "The TNVC "alignment rings" prevent you from properly installing a COTI."

So I guess you could move the mounting bracket clamp out onto the ribs of the objective, but that is not how it is really supposed to be installed on a PVS 14.
 
Oh gotcha. Missed the u bolt part.

How big are these collimation targets and what distance do you use? Just crunched some numbers and if i'm not mistaken, if I want to be about 10 ft away from the targets, they'd have to be the size of a door?
 
On a PVS 14 the COTI mounting bracket is supposed to be clamped around the Objective Lens Locking Ring. That area is occupied by the TNVC NPB ring if that Bridge is used.

I stated: "The TNVC "alignment rings" prevent you from properly installing a COTI."

So I guess you could move the mounting bracket clamp out onto the ribs of the objective, but that is not how it is really supposed to be installed on a PVS 14.
Gotcha man it's crazy to think I had my coti fucked up this entire time hahahaha sucks to suck. I always found it annoying that to change my focus on my coti eye, I had to move the coti around. Hurts to be stupid I guess.
 
@jeffl838 So peoples eyes and brains can work differently with NV.

When you were running a PVS 31 with a COTI on it. Did your left and right eye ever struggle over which one recognized the COTI say in Outline Mode such that you would get a strong thermal outline image or did you have to close the eye that the COTI was not on to get a good solid COTI outline image?
 
@jeffl838 So peoples eyes and brains can work differently with NV.

When you were running a PVS 31 with a COTI on it. Did your left and right eye ever struggle over which one recognized the COTI say in Outline Mode such that you would get a strong thermal outline image or did you have to close the eye that the COTI was not on to get a good solid COTI outline image?
because of how insane the battery life was, and how fast and easy boot up was, i didn't turn it on unless i needed it and i turned it off when i didn't. I was always able to keep both eyes open when using the coti. i placed it over my non-dominant eye and usually used full thermal.
 
Realistically you only have to be as far away as the nearest focus on your pvs-14.

The human eye/brain does a pretty good job of aligning two circles. See for example the fact that you can use a globe sight which has the same principles to shoot a 1000m target.
Point taken. Thanks for the advice!

I know it's bad practice to turn nvg's on during the day, but how much damage are you really doing turning them on in a room during the daytime?
 
because of how insane the battery life was, and how fast and easy boot up was, i didn't turn it on unless i needed it and i turned it off when i didn't. I was always able to keep both eyes open when using the coti. i placed it over my non-dominant eye and usually used full thermal.
Gotcha. One of the reasons I was asking what your experience was is because I am right handed and right eye dominate and run the COTI on my left eye. However, even if I run the COTI on my right eye, both of my eyes kinda fight over producing a strong outline view.

So here is my fix. Because I run Dual 14's some of the time, I will have the COTI over the left eye and I adjust the gain down on my right eye and SHAZZAM, the world turns perfect. My brain and eyes have the benefit of excellent depth perception via they both happy cause right eye is catching a NV view, albeit dimmed but everything truly becomes fused correctly at that point. My eyes and brain are not fighting over which one dominates the projected Thermal Image. I get excellent thermal outline strong image as well as great depth perception cause both eyes are looking through NV.

Now here is the real bonus point. Because my right tube is dimmed way down, my right eye keeps its natural night vision which enables me to monitor the ambient lighting conditions very well.

So for me, the ability to have independent gain adjustment for each tube is a huge plus when running a COTI.
 
that's interesting and certainly something i'll keep in mind. Should I feel free to go for collimation in a room during daytime? Should I have concern about light damage when interior? There is no situation where I'll turn these guys on outdoors with the sun out, but i like to mess with them indoors and want to know i'm not hurting them. I feel hyper-cautious cause these are personal and would like to hear someone tell me i'm stupid before i do something stupid. thanks.
 
Any thoughts/comments on the Mod Armory QD bridge? Was eyeballing that recently in preparation for getting a second 14...
It is a great mount. I have 2 of them. However, I personally like the Light Weight Version the best.

The Light Weight has such a very small and compact footprint and is so light that you don't even realize you have a bridge on. It is also extremely strong with absolutely ZERO wiggle anywhere. Solid as a rock. Unless you have some really big reason to want a quick disconnect, I would definitely choose the Light Weight Version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarinePMI
It is a great mount. I have 2 of them. However, I personally like the Light Weight Version the best.

The Light Weight has such a very small and compact footprint and is so light that you don't even realize you have a bridge on. It is also extremely strong with absolutely ZERO wiggle anywhere. Solid as a rock. Unless you have some really big reason to want a quick disconnect, I would definitely choose the Light Weight Version.
With G24 mount I presume?
 
Does it retain collimation well? It looks like it just screws on, what prevents it from moving?
It has 1 small male numb on each side of the mounting screw that aligns with the female depressions in the PVS 14 which are on each side of the mounting hole. Me and my numerous buddies that run Mod Armory Bridges and mounts have never had any issues with them moving at all.

Regarding collimation. We have the PVS 14's collimated within their system and then bolt them on to the bridges. Never had any issues with alignment on the bridges regarding our eyes or brains. However, it is possible to put them on some kind of machine and say they aint collimated, but in the real world of use it has been an absolute non issue for us. I personally have been under bridged 14's for 10 hours a night a lot.

I have read a bunch of posts over the years over on ARFcom where certain people have made all kind of hoopla about bridged systems causing headaches etc. I really just think they were trying to push dedicated Bino's they were selling. Technically, they might have had some merit, but realistic in the field use I call BS.
 
With G24 mount I presume?
I have a G24 and parked it years ago but keep it just for those times when someone trys to skewl me on how great the G24 is. For some reason it is the current Gucci coolaid many are drinking.

A Rhino 2 with Dovetail Socket paired with the Mod Armory Bridges are by far the most solid, versatile and reliable setup I have seen. It does everything way better than the Wilcox G24. A Rhino 2 with Dovetail Socket will run you about $125 to say $150 to put together. Save yourself a ton of money and get better performance, strength, adjustment and overall reliability over the G24.

One of my huge bitch's about the G24 is the chatter/wiggle in the Fore & Aft adjustment on those teeth on the rail. The only way to stop that is to tension down on the set screw that take that out, but then you cannot adjust your NODS in and out easily during the night if you want to without a tool.

Here are some pics with Dual COTI on they don't fold as flat because of the COTI's

1587853696952.png



1587853805002.png



Here are some pics without COTI on which shows you how flat a set of PVS 14s fold down with the Mod Armory Bridge and a Rhino 2 with Dovetail

1587854001623.png


1587854184854.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: BamaSE
How much difference does collimation really make?

I ask because I've been using a 14 with a thermal a good bit and I can't figure out how to collimate them at all... Then sometimes I'll throw a second 14 on just for a bit and it just lands where it may. I really haven't noticed anything needing adjustment when I switch to dual 14 and I really can't get the thermal and NV image lined up anyway.

Other than getting settings like brightness and color set correctly the first few times, as well as figuring out which eye I needed my thermal on, I haven't had any headache problems since figuring those items out. When I had brightness too high and colors galore then it bothered me in short order. Only thing that bothers me now is the top of my head hurting after four-five hours of wearing a 14, patrol, rechargable battery, counterweights, and the helmet...
 
I have a G24 and parked it years ago but keep it just for those times when someone trys to skewl me on how great the G24 is. For some reason it is the current Gucci coolaid many are drinking.

A Rhino 2 with Dovetail Socket paired with the Mod Armory Bridges are by far the most solid, versatile and reliable setup I have seen. It does everything way better than the Wilcox G24. A Rhino 2 with Dovetail Socket will run you about $125 to say $150 to put together. Save yourself a ton of money and get better performance, strength, adjustment and overall reliability over the G24.

One of my huge bitch's about the G24 is the chatter/wiggle in the Fore & Aft adjustment on those teeth on the rail. The only way to stop that is to tension down on the set screw that take that out, but then you cannot adjust your NODS in and out easily during the night if you want to without a tool.

Here are some pics with Dual COTI on they don't fold as flat because of the COTI's

View attachment 7308535


View attachment 7308539


Here are some pics without COTI on which shows you how flat a set of PVS 14s fold down with the Mod Armory Bridge and a Rhino 2 with Dovetail

View attachment 7308547

View attachment 7308549
You wanna sell/trade your g24?
 
@jeffl838
10-4
I'm not worried about impact much though

I'm not in many... dynamic environments...

I'm using a carbon helmet as it is and I wouldn't bank on it taking a big hit. I'm just hunting mostly and tried a helmet to see if it would stay put when we hang several pounds worth of bridge and gear off the front better than my nightcap would. Plus I have a big ol' melon, and the nightcap is really on the verge of being too small.
 
@jeffl838
10-4
I'm not worried about impact much though

I'm not in many... dynamic environments...

I'm using a carbon helmet as it is and I wouldn't bank on it taking a big hit. I'm just hunting mostly and tried a helmet to see if it would stay put when we hang several pounds worth of bridge and gear off the front better than my nightcap would. Plus I have a big ol' melon, and the nightcap is really on the verge of being too small.
I'm hunting but wanna get an ATV some day to goon around on, and I've got a slightly large head - the nightcap almost doesn't fit.
 
I didn't consider the ATV. Good point!

I'm currently walking a good bit wearing the stuff and had "discussed" getting an electric cart for a quite travel option while wearing the helmet, but wasn't thinking of anything with enough power or ability to warrant a stronger helmet.

I really do wish crye would make a XXL option
 
You wanna sell/trade your g24?
Not really. Just keep them around so I can show a new user why the Rhino 2 is the better mount vs the G24. Some of the younger guys just getting in wanna start telling me all this and that while they making up their minds on how to rig out. It is nice to actually be able to show them for a fact why their logic is wrong.
 
Not really. Just keep them around so I can show a new user why the Rhino 2 is the better mount vs the G24. Some of the younger guys just getting in wanna start telling me all this and that while they making up their minds on how to rig out. It is nice to actually be able to show them for a fact why their logic is wrong.
I have an aka2 and if it didn't have the mid stow position, could tilt just a few degrees lower, and had the fore and aft knob a little lower profile or on the other side (the knob interferes with flat stowage with a TNVC mount), i would prefer it over a g24. Right now, I think i prefer the g24 because I recall it tilting a little lower and i could lay my nvg's a little flatter. I haven't used an aka2 hyper though.

I have a rhino 2, but I've only used it with the bayonet and single 14. I didn't think too much about it - for a single 14 I wouldn't use anything else.
 
It is a great mount. I have 2 of them. However, I personally like the Light Weight Version the best.

The Light Weight has such a very small and compact footprint and is so light that you don't even realize you have a bridge on. It is also extremely strong with absolutely ZERO wiggle anywhere. Solid as a rock. Unless you have some really big reason to want a quick disconnect, I would definitely choose the Light Weight Version.

Holy smokes! You weren't kidding on how small this bridge is! (Mine just showed up)

This thing is tiny!
 
Some points here need clarification...

The PVS-14/7 COTI bracket can be installed either to the objective lock ring or to the objective lens assembly itself, and the PVS-14/7 bracket has a notch on both sides to allow it to be mounted either way, and it works perfectly fine in either orientation and maintains the proper standoff with the objective lens.

Earlier PVS-31 BNVD brackets were narrower and designed to attach to the objective lens assembly, however they have been revised to a larger ring that attaches to the outside of the housing behind the objective lens assembly--again, both mounting configurations are "correct."

Mechanical alignment and collimation are not the same thing.

The COTI fits just fine with the PBM or NPBM, you just have to reverse the mounting bracket to attach to the objective lens assembly.

The PBM/NPBM are designed to allow for the best possible mechanical alignment of the devices, something that is much more difficult to accomplish using only a single point of contact.

Collimation is alignment of the actual optical image to coalign between both eyes.

Different people's eyes are different, and some are more or less sensitive to mismatches in collimation, however just because it "works for me," it doesn't mean that it's proper or correct, or couldn't cause a problem for others. Collimation is a thing that exists and is a spec for a reason. There are various DIY and rigged up methods for trying to adjust collimation on your own, and they can more or less generally work... if you know what you're doing, but again, to do it properly you need a test set with a collimation bridge.

Actually setting collimation involves loosening the eyepieces and rotating them until the images coalign properly according to the test spec and the image in the test set, though people will do it with scopes, using stars, etc., when they're doing it at home without the proper equipment. This also therefore requires disassembly of the device beyond what is usually recommended on a user level, not the least of which is because, again, if you want it done properly, you will most likely need to re-purge your device.

Yeah, sure, got it, guys will claim that purging is fake too, and that they can do the same thing with canned air, and again, it's whatever, if it works for you, then fine, but again, there's a right and wrong way to do things.

Long story short, bridged PVS-14s can't really be collimated at a user level, at least not without disassembling the device further than recommended for end-users.

Yes, you can open them up and attempt to collimate them--but you run into the pesky issue of PVS-14s, having not been designed for binocular applications having about three times the allowable image shift compared to MX-10160 format tubes used in most binocular systems, meaning that they can be harder to collimate properly, especially within spec, which generally requires collimation to be achieved within one half turn of the eyepiece assemblies.

Finally--your eyes and brain are generally very forgiving. To a point. Your eyes and brain can resolve a lot of less than ideal images, however this doesn't mean that they like it. Long term eye strain and fatigue can be an effect of improperly adjusted goggles, which may not be something that you notice consciously, but can have a cumulative effect over a long period of time.

This effect can manifest itself simply as you being more tired than someone else and nothing more, or for some it can be a tension headache. Some people also stave this off by periodically taking "breaks" and flipping their goggles off to rest their eyes/brain--which may be needed more frequently.

One way or another, if it works for you, then it works for you, it's not an issue.

But to call building goggles properly, to spec, using the right equipment "bunk" because you can't tell the difference is not really accurate, it's the equivalent of saying that it doesn't really matter that some rifle manufacturers actually use the proper specs, methods, and equipment to build rifles when the home-brew AR you slapped together at the kitchen table using vice grips, a Gerber, and a strap wrench is "just as good" as a factory KAC. Which maybe that is what you think, again, if it works for you then enjoy. If you think it's overpriced and it's not worth your money for what you do, then that's fine, no one's making you spend your money--all of your buddies have home built PSA parts guns, and it's never been a problem, so it must be good and everyone who pays for a properly built rifle or any other equipment using the proper equipment and specs must be a fool.

:🤷:

~Augee
 
  • Like
Reactions: NateSavannah
@TNVC_Augee

Ok so let’s eat this Elephantiasis of a Dissertation one bite at a time as it appears from some very specific wording in your post that this was directed at some of my previous statements in this thread.

Bite 1: First and foremost, lets clarify some points very concisely that it appears you may not know or have not taken into account.

You state:
“Some points here need clarification...

The PVS-14/7 COTI bracket can be installed either to the objective lock ring or to the objective lens assembly itself, and the PVS-14/7 bracket has a notch on both sides to allow it to be mounted either way, and it works perfectly fine in either orientation and maintains the proper standoff with the objective lens.”

You are correct that it can. However, just because you can, doesn’t necessarily mean you should. More about that at the end.

In my previous very first post in this thread I clearly stated:

1. “The TNVC "alignment rings" prevent you from properly installing a COTI. The Mod Armory Light Weight does not.” (Underline and Bold added for emphasis)

Because of ITAR rules it is kind of iffy for me to publish Optic’s 1 Operators Manual because it is specifically marked “ITAR-Controlled and Optics 1 Proprietary”. However, the front Cover Page of the Manual does not appear to be under ITAR rules, but contains further verbiage as to the warning. So, I am providing a picture of one of the very documents I am referencing such that you yourself and others that have access to this document can go read the specific pages I reference.

On Page 18 (3.2.2 Attaching the Mounting Bracket (PVS-7, PVS-14, PVS-23) it states in part the following:

“(2) Mount the COTI to the mounting bracket. (Figure 8)
(3) Loosen the over-center latch.
(4) Slide the bracket over the objective lens of the NVG.
PVS -7/14: Slide bracket onto Objective Lens Locking Ring (Figure 7)
PVS-23: Slide bracket onto objective lens.
(5) Orient unit as desired.
(PVS-14 requires the COTI unit be rotated against the battery compartment.)
(6) Clamp the over-center latch."

On page 19 are the Figures with Photographs of how to properly install the COTI on a PVS 14.

Now. if you will look at all of the mounting instructions in the entire manual, you will also see that reversing the mounting bracket like you discuss is for installing onto a PVS 15 or 18.

You can go through the entire manual and you will never see any instructions or diagrams to mount the COTI on the ribbed objective lens of a PVS 14 as you have stated. It is always on the Objective Lens Locking Ring.

You state: “the PVS-14/7 bracket has a notch on both sides to allow it to be mounted either way”

Indeed, it is slotted on both sides, but not for the reason you are trying to say here, so you can mount it on the ribbed objective lens assembly of a PVS 14. The reason it is slotted on both sides is because this same mount is also used to mount the COTI to the PVS 15 & 18 by using the supplied rubber bushing and then reversing the mount to fit onto them.

So, while you can do that, it is not the proper way as shown in the Optics 1 Operators Manual. I would tend to think the Manufacturer knows more about how to properly install a COTI on a PVS 14 than Augee at TNVC.

So, if someone improperly mounted it per your instructions would it be covered under warranty if it slipped off, hit the ground and Sh^T the bed. Maybe so, maybe not.

Now, while I cannot put the Optics 1 Pas 29 Operators Manual on here, I can provide a link where the Nivisys TACS-M Operators Manual can be downloaded and viewed by all from Nivisys' site.

This manual has relevance in that it is pretty much the exact same instructions for mounting as the current Optics 1 Pas 29 Operators Manual.

It is my understanding that the TACS M and Optics 1 Pas 29 come/came off the same assembly line and are exactly the same with the following exceptions.

1. The software programming of the Pas 29 is slightly different than the TACS-M (I have run both versions and am very familiar with them)
2. The Pas 29 has an external battery connection and the TACS-M does not.

Other than those 2 things, the units are exactly the same.

In the Nivisy’s TACS-M Operators Manual, if you review Pages 2-3 to 2-14, you will again see that the correct mounting of the COTI to a PVS 14 is on the Objective Lens Locking Ring. Not once is it shown to mount the COTI to the ribbed Objective Focus Lens Assembly. These pages also show for what models of NV devices you flip the Standard Mounting Bracket around to use,, which is a PVS 15 and 18. They also show Optional Mounting Brackets for other NV devices.

So Augee, lets get down to what is really going on here. The TNVC Bridge mounts prevent the COTI from correctly being installed per the Manufacturer’s Instructions and Operators Manual and you are just trying to salvage that fact by saying you can do it this away. You are correct. It can be done that way.

However, just because you can, doesn’t necessarily mean you should.

Here is the biggest problem IMHO when you mount the COTI to the ribbed Objective Focus Ring Assembly. So, as you know throughout the night using a COTI, you have to cover the lens and NUC the unit or adjust some settings. When you do that or access any of the other controls, the pressure you have to put on those buttons, will inevitably move the objective focus ring out of the focus you have it set at and then you have to monkey around to get your NV back to the correct focus you had set it at.

Hecque brother, I am an expert at Redneck Engineering & Rigging. But lets just be up front and honest about what it is.

Stay tuned for more, as time permits. :
1588668054705.png
:




1588668000944.png
 
Last edited:
Glad you linked a pdf, and not posted the COTI manual. Just posting it on the internet is an ITAR violation (technically an export)...as I'm sure you are aware (I'm commenting so others are explicitly aware).
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhereNow&How
@WhereNow&How

We are a direct distributor for Optics1 and I personally spent over eighteen months setting up direct commercial sales of new production AN/PAS-29As to the commercial market with manufacturer’s support and product warranties.

The TACS-M was manufactured by Optics1 with Nivisys as a contract vehicle years ago, and there are few people with really deep technical knowledge of the TACS-M and the differences between it and the AN/PAS-29A still left at Optics1.

Previous sales of the AN/PAS-29A on the commercial market have been through TLS vendors like Potomac River Group and ADS, which is where many of the “NOS” PAS-29As were coming from, which I understand have now dried up, in particular a large contract through ADS that ended up being cancelled that ADS refused to take back, leaving a vendor with several old units that they’ve been selling and trading off to whomever they could trying to make their money back.

The point is that I’m not talking about Optics1 or the COTI in a vacuum based only on the operator’s manual, and whether you realize it or not, am one of the primary drivers of the recent resurgence in popularity and information of COTI-type devices, a product that has been around frankly for about a decade now, but that has not been particularly well known.

To that point, you’re correct that the preferred way to mount the bracket is on the lock ring (P.S. there is a separate P/N for a PVS-15/18 bracket, though Optics1 has changed their brackets here and there), however when I say it’s “fine” mounted to the objective lens assembly, I’m not talking out of my ass either.

I’ve sat in meetings with program managers for the COTI and E-COTI among other products as well as other executives with the PBM, and here’s a little bit of inside dope that we haven’t discussed a whole lot—the NPBM would not exist if it hadn’t been for Optics1, they requested it for one of their customers based on the PBM-A which we had showed them, which gave us a reason to develop a non-powered version, previously my opinion had been that there were enough non-powered bridges available on the market that there was no reason for us to make one.

So, I think they’re cool with it.

Is it possible to induce movement with the bracket mounted to the objective lens? Absolutely. It’s just something you need to be aware of.

It’s also possible with the bracket mounted to the objective lock ring to torque the device enough to cause the tiny set screw (if it’s even installed—we’ve seen some builders omit them entirely) to lose hold and allow the lock ring to spin free, defeating its primary reason for existence, and which is far less user-serviceable than simply re-tweaking the objective focus if you accidentally moved it a little. Also, once you’ve stripped the set screw, if installed, the COTI will also essentially just rotate freely. With more COTIs being used with more commercially built systems, it’s something we’ve been seeing happen more often.

As for warranty, it’s kind of moot, because the only COTIs that still have active manufacturer’s warranties are the new ones that we sell, TACS-M or third-party sourced PAS-29As are pretty much all out of the manufacturer’s warranty period, and one of the reasons Optics1 has been and is so reluctant to deal commercial direct is because they don’t want to deal with individual customer warranty issues and the headaches that come with it.

Which means that if you have a warranty issue, it will likely filter directly through me personally, because I manage the COTI program for TNVC, and in many cases am essentially the only person who manages commercial support for these products.

Believe me or don’t, since all you’ve got is my word, which it feels like you’re not inclined to want to believe. It is what it is, can’t win ‘em all.

~Augee
 
@TNVC_Augee

Man, that is all great info and a nice history lesson. I always like those. Much appreciated.

However, lets not get off track with the simple issue that you tried to straighten me out on and that was that it was proper procedure and what the Manufacturer intended by stating:

“Some points here need clarification...

The PVS-14/7 COTI bracket can be installed either to the objective lock ring or to the objective lens assembly itself, and the PVS-14/7 bracket has a notch on both sides to allow it to be mounted either way, and it works perfectly fine in either orientation and maintains the proper standoff with the objective lens.”

It is painfully obvious per the published OEM Operator Manuals and common deductive logic that mounting the COTI to your movable focus lens assembly on a PVS 14 only has downsides, especially in a dynamic war-fighter's environment when he reaches up to increase his thermal power on the COTI Power Nob and due to adrenaline, is a little too heavy handed and gets his focus all screwed up at that magic moment of truth.

As you know, just a slight bit of movement on the objective focus assembly will get it out of focus. All the side avenue discussion in your reply cannot take away from the fact that you were not correct in your statement above. Yes, it can be done, but is not correct per the Manufacturers mounting instructions.

All the razzle dazzle does not change the facts nor truth. Politicians are really bad about doing that to the plebes.

You state:

Believe me or don’t, since all you’ve got is my word, which it feels like you’re not inclined to want to believe. It is what it is, can’t win ‘em all.

There is absolutely know doubt in my mind that you are a very accomplished, experienced and great asset to the NV community. I read all of your posts and have learned a lot from your sharing information. Again, much appreciated.

However, I well understand what it means to Fly The Flag, so to speak, and understand why you would come to the rescue of the TNVC bridge mounts as it relates to using a COTI on that assembly. I am actually very inclined to want to believe, however, when faced with irrefutable information and proof to the contrary, a healthy discussion is warranted.

Additionally, let me take this opportunity to thank you for all the years of service you have given to the country, as well as all the other readers whom have also served.
 
whoa didn't expect wall of text.

I ran a coti on my 31's on the focus ring and turned it into a throw lever of sorts for focusing close/far.

That being said, if I had found a way to mount it without needing to do that, I would have done so. The throw lever method wasn't a pro, it was just the only way that it wasn't stupid.

Luckily for me, as much as I loved the coti, it's out of my reach right now due to price (not paying 4k for a 320 resolution mini thermal), so it's not something i have to consider.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhereNow&How
That’s fair enough, and I appreciate your civility.

Again, as I did note, the preferred way of mounting is to use the objective lock ring—however there’s a difference between the manufacturer’s preferred and recommended way of use, and how a product is going to end up being used, and Optics1 knows that as well as any manufacturer.

They recommend what they see as the best way, because at the end of the day, you have to mount it one way or another and they have to put something in the user manual, which everyone demands, but end users ultimately rarely actually read.

From a design standpoint, you don’t design something that can be installed “wrong” if you can help it, and again, while the PVS-14 bracket can work with the PVS-15/18, they did also design a separate bracket for it.

Getting a little bit into semantics, but I did say that it can be mounted in either direction, and that it "works perfectly fine" in either orientation.

In your scenario above--a user accidentally cranking on the COTI--if attached to the lock ring can cause the whole lock ring to rotate, which could then interfere with focus, and depending on the severity, potentially deadline the whole device. The difference here is that if the focus changes slightly it's just as easy to re-adjust quickly and easily instead of having the device flop around on a loosened lock ring/infinity stop. Moreover, if you already have a device with a loose lock ring, which again, we've seen many of as DIY and garage-vendors increase, but even on military or LEO issued units, I've seen it, you can't "properly" install the COTI either. Ultimately the bracket is unsophisticated and really just a means to an end (getting the COTI's emitter in front of the objective lens) and frankly not my favorite part of the system however you choose to use it.

Part of the point in my reply is that the manufacturer is well aware of all of this, and has confirmed that it's fine to use in either orientation as your needs may dictate, including specifically its use with our bridge mounts, one of which only exists because Optics1 specifically requested it--again, I've been fairly vocal about not being a fan of bridged PVS-14s, but we developed the PBM-A because we were asked to.

Once we developed that, I was pretty adamant about not wanting to be a "bridge company," and refusing at first to develop a non-powered version because there were already so many different non-powered bridge options on the market that I saw no need to compete with, until Optics1 requested a non-powered version of our PBM. And let me tell you, I tried to sell them anyone else's bridge mount saying "well, there's plenty of options out there..." but was asked, "no can, you make a version of this one?"

So... I acquiesced and we built the NPBM-D, which, being honest, has been a terrific seller. That I was and am still kind of against from the get go, but that if we were going to develop, I was still going to try to make sure it was the best it could be. At the time, we were again asked if we were going to make it Breach compatible as well--this is again something that I've strongly recommended against, even though we do sell products that will allow you to do it, and if you ask, I'll tell you how, but that's why there is not, and will not be a TNVC PVS-14/Breach bridge unless... to be honest, someone with a requirement forces my hand. The point here though is that it honestly is not just about profit or flying the flag. Do I think our PVS-14 bridges are the best available for that application? Yes, because if we were going to do it, we weren't going to just release another milquetoast bridge system to add to the market so we could slap our name on it, but if I could make it so the PVS-14 bridges never existed, I would do so happily. I know you disagree and like that format, even if not our bridge, which is fine, it it works best for you and your applications, then there's no issue.

You are right in and that I don't spend a lot of time here on Sniper's Hide (a guy's only got so many hours in the day, hahaha) so I didn't stumble across this thread by accident, someone sent it to me asking me for clarification--though honestly it had more to do with collimation than with the COTI, with collimation being (apparently) a suddenly hot topic again lately, with a lot of information being thrown out there by a lot of different sources, not all of it right.

With all vendors coming under some... increased scrutiny lately, rightly so, and that I'm always happy to address, it seemed/seems worthwhile to chime in--especially since the comment is frequently made, here and many other places that, vendors push binocular systems for reasons of profit motive.

For what it's worth--in general, profit margins are actually mostly better on monocular systems than they are on dedicated binoculars, and in this industry like many others, accessories usually have much better profit margins than base products. If my advice was driven by simple profit motive rather than by a genuine belief that dedicated binocular systems are superior for a host of reasons, I would advise everyone to buy dual PVS-14s and bridge them, because the profit margin would actually be better for us that way, granted not by much, but still better.

Dedicated binocular systems may be more expensive in simple dollars and cents out the door, but that's in part because they require almost twice the components of a PVS-14 in terms of tubes, optics, and even small parts like lock rings, etc., and with PVS-14 housings usually being cheaper due to both sheer economies of scale and venerability as well as complexity and actual expense in terms of raw materials to produce than binocular housings, as well as extra time and labor for us as assemblers to match tubes and collimate them to standard using the proper equipment. Either way, I certainly wouldn't spend so much time on the internet trying to explain and re-explain all of this if the end result is just going to be losing one to two points of margin if it was all made up.

~Augee
 
@TNVC_Augee

Bite No 2: Now, let’s continue clarifying some points very concisely that you have completely misstated and misconstrued what I said.

You state:

“But to call building goggles properly, to spec, using the right equipment "bunk" because you can't tell the difference is not really accurate, it's the equivalent of saying that it doesn't really matter that some rifle manufacturers actually use the proper specs, methods, and equipment to build rifles when the home-brew AR you slapped together at the kitchen table using vice grips, a Gerber, and a strap wrench is "just as good" as a factory KAC. Which maybe that is what you think, again, if it works for you then enjoy.”
(Underline and Bold Added For Emphasis)

I actually stated:

“There has been many threads on NV forums where certain people have thrown out a whole bunch of information claiming all kinds of stuff about dedicated Binos wont give you headaches vs bridged 14's will because of collimation. Most of it appears to be bunk. Hecque, whether a dedicated bino or bridge, you are using hangers to hang pods. So the alignment of the hangers in relationship to the cross member has to be designed and built accurate no matter what system you use. (Underline and Bold Added For Emphasis)

As can clearly be seen from reading what I said vs what you say I said, you are wrong. I never said building proper to spec equipment was bunk as you allege I said.

I said that certain people have thrown out information saying bridged 14’s will give you headaches and most of that appears to be bunk.

I also stated that:

"Hecque, whether a dedicated bino or bridge, you are using hangers to hang pods. So the alignment of the hangers in relationship to the cross member has to be designed and built accurate no matter what system you use. (Underline and Bold Added For Emphasis)

As my very clear original statement shows, I believe that both a bino or bridged system has to be designed and built accurate no mater what system you use.

Given, that you have a Ph.D in English Literature, I assume your comprehension abilities are extremely high.

For you to totally mischaracterize what I said and then try to portray to other readers that I don’t believe in building systems to spec using the right equipment is fine, (to me) is just another example that you are willing to bend the truth to Fly The Flag.

In the future, I would really appreciate it if you would accurately characterize anything I state.

Thanks
 
@WhereNow&How

If you want to go line by line, we certainly can.

You said:

"Regarding collimation. It is my understanding that the tube is actually collimated to the individual PVS 14 system. Bridged Tubes are not really collimated to each others alignment within the bridge system."

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but it does not seem that you have a clear understanding of what collimation means based on this statement.

You also said:

"I never said building proper to spec equipment was bunk as you allege I said."

Let's track the logic:

- collimation of dual tube goggles is an important part of "building to proper spec equipment."

- one of the potential results of using uncollimated, poorly collimated goggles can be headaches. They can also simply be increased fatigue or increased eye strain that you might not ever notice consciously

- different people's brains and eyes react to uncollimated goggles differently and to different extremes.

- just because you haven't noticed it doesn't mean it's not real

Your statement, bolded and underlined by you for emphasis:

"There has been many threads on NV forums where certain people have thrown out a whole bunch of information claiming all kinds of stuff about dedicated Binos wont give you headaches vs bridged 14's will because of collimation. Most of it appears to be bunk."

Building a binocular system properly to spec involves collimation. It does, fact. Whether you think it's important or not is immaterial.

Use of the word "claim" generally implies that you think it's dubious. "dedicated binos won't give you headaches vs bridged 14's will because of collimation."

You can disagree, but I think that's an accurate statement despite some semantic issues with your paraphrasing of things that I among others have stated in the past in various venues.

If I've used a "will/won't" statement, then it's because I was likely in a rush and have had to repeat myself numerous times on this topic.

The point is not that they definitely will, it's that bridged PVS-14s--usually not collimated, because collimation is not "supposed" to be done at a user level, though more and more guys are now starting to do "DIY collimation" (they seem to think it's worthwhile enough to try to get "as close as possible" without the proper equipment, but I commend them for at least trying, and usually they can at least make it better)--are more likely to give you headaches, because again, that is one symptom/indication of uncollimated or improperly collimated binocular systems.

Dedicated binos are far less likely to cause these headaches if properly built and collimated to spec, because the whole point of collimation is to optically align the images.

Ergo--to say that "the claim" (dedicated binos [are less likely to] give you headaches vs bridged 14s because of collimation) is "bunk" is to imply that the procedure (collimation) and it's effects on use are bunk.

Collimation, again, is a part of "building to proper spec equipment," bridged PVS-14s

If the effects of collimation are bunk--then that part of the procedure is bunk. If it has no effect, then there's no reason to do it--it's bunk, as you put it.

Moving on.

"Hecque, whether a dedicated bino or bridge, you are using hangers to hang pods. So the alignment of the hangers in relationship to the cross member has to be designed and built accurate no matter what system you use. (Underline and Bold Added For Emphasis)

"As my very clear original statement shows, I believe that both a bino or bridged system has to be designed and built accurate no mater what system you use."

You're talking about mechanical alignment versus optical alignment/collimation. They're different things. Never said it didn't have to be accurate, and it's the reason for the yoke design the PBM uses, to keep the best possible mechanical alignment.

I do not think I mischaracterized what you said at all.

The clear implication of your statements regarding the matter was that collimation was not important, and that the claims of those who say it is are bunk. Because you've never noticed a difference and neither have your buddies. But you also admit that you did send some of your devices in to get collimated.

If a "binocular system" broadly, a night vision device or combination thereof that uses two image intensifiers to provide the user with a stereoscopic image is the "to proper spec equipment" in question, dedicated binos (at least depending on who builds them) are built "to proper spec." Bridged PVS-14s do not constitute "building to proper spec equipment," because they're not collimated--binocular systems should be collimated if they're to be "to spec."

If we're going to discuss my education--FWIW, I haven't finished the Ph.D. yet, but I have taught college rhetoric and composition among other subjects.

What you are doing is to try to pick and choose passages and semantically dissect to retroactively alter your intent and in so doing trying to make it look as if I am responding inappropriately to the overall tone and content of your original post(s).

By any reasonable standard, starting from "bridged PVS-14s are superior to PVS-31 in every way but one (weight)" to "claiming all kinds of stuff... Most of it appears to be bunk" the overall message (at least as it relates to collimation) is clear:

You do not feel collimation is important and those that say it is feeding you bullshit, because it has no effect. '

I can neither argue with nor respond to your original intent, I can only speak to what you wrote.

You followed up your post later saying:

"Regarding collimation. We have the PVS 14's collimated within their system and then bolt them on to the bridges. Never had any issues with alignment on the bridges regarding our eyes or brains. However, it is possible to put them on some kind of machine and say they aint collimated, but in the real world of use it has been an absolute non issue for us. I personally have been under bridged 14's for 10 hours a night a lot.

"I have read a bunch of posts over the years over on ARFcom where certain people have made all kind of hoopla about bridged systems causing headaches etc.
I really just think they were trying to push dedicated Bino's they were selling. Technically, they might have had some merit, but realistic in the field use I call BS."

Ahem, "bolded and underlined for emphasis."

"My device is probably out of spec if you tested it properly. But I haven't noticed."

"They're just trying to sell you stuff."

"They're probably technically right, but I call BS anyways because I've never noticed."

That "technical stuff" and the "putting it on a machine" is called "doing it properly to spec."

So.

Is it really a mischaracterization to say that you said that properly built to spec equipment was bunk/BS?

Not based on what you wrote.

Maybe it's not what you meant. But it's what you wrote.

~Augee
 
P.S.

@jeffl838

I apologize for the severe derailment of your thread.

Re: your original question, the way the PBM and NPBM were designed, they were not intended to be collimated.

Collimation involves rotating the eyepiece lens assemblies to align the optical shift of the image intensifer tubes and lenses to be in as close alignment as possible.

When light enters the objective lens, image intensifier tube, and eyepiece lens, it does not travel in a perfectly straight path, it experiences some shift as it goes through, so it does not translate perfectly parallel from the input to the output end.

This is why clip-on night vision devices are so expensive, and it is also an important part of building binocular systems, and there are test sets and direct support mainentance procedures for checking and setting collimation.

The PBM and NPBM were originally designed to allow units and organizations to have a “binocular-like” capability using fleeted PVS-14s that could not simply be sold or traded for dedicated binoculars.

The overall goal was to create a system that provided some of the benefits of a binocular system at a minimal cost and impact to the user—which also meant user-level installation.

Since removing/rotating eyepiece assemblies to set collimation is not a user-level task, in that sense, the PBM/NPBM are advertised as not being able to be truly collimated.

That being said, if you had access to a test set you could hypothetically try to collimate them, however, PVS-14 MX-11769 style image intensifiers allow for about three times the amount of optical shift that MX-10160 “aviation grade” image intensifiers commonly used in most binocular systems allow for, meaning that they may, depending on how far on the tolerance spectrum they are, be more difficult or impossible to properly collimate within the stated specs (1/2 rotation of the eyepiece assembly), and even if you can get them within tolerance, they may not be as close as they could be with MX-10160 format tubes.

There are some ways to “DIY” collimate that are not necessarily the same as using the correct tools/fixtures, however may get you closer than “factory,” however again, they require disassembly of the PVS-14, and to be done “to spec,” will require a re-purge. Instructions for how to do so “DIY” have been posted recently on ARFCOM as well, two good threads to check out have been written by tlandoe07 and cj7hawk.

The reality is that while collimation is certainly important and poor alignment can cause issues for some users, your brain is a wonderful tool, and can be remarkably forgiving.

Within reason, you brain can often adjust imperfect images enough to allow you to function normally without your having to go through much if any conscious effort.

It’s not “as good” as proper alignment, but it’s useable. I have used uncollimated goggles before—for me knowing what I should see, it’s immediately noticeable, however within 5-10 minutes, my eyes/brain have adjusted to it, and I no longer notice the misalignment, though I may feel a little crosseyed when I remove the goggles.

Now, some people are more or less sensitive to these kinds of optical alignment issues, I am not that sensitive.

For some people the results on the extreme end can be an immediate headache. For most people, however, it simply limits the amount of time the goggles can safely be used before fatigue and processor (brain) burnout occurs, and they either have to stop using them, or if you’re talking about operating a vehicle or handling firearms, it simply becomes unsafe for them to continue doing so.

This is not something that’s likely to be noticed by most in individual use and in isolation in limited use.

Where it becomes more apparent is in the comparison of groups of people using different equipment, guys using poorly adjusted or misaligned systems get tired faster, have to take more breaks, have more “brain farts” as time goes on and their processors start getting overwhelmed and overworked. Certainly the overall system weight doesn’t help either, but again—considering that these requirements come from the aviation community and aviation systems, the need is fairly obvious, you don’t want guys starting to miss things and make poor decisions while operating an aircraft—and you can’t wait until the operator starts getting tired to pull the plug, because you still need to land the thing. In many cases a ground user could simply step back, take a break, flip their goggles up, and carry on.

That being said, it is, as I’ve noted in the various derails, a real thing, and part of building binocular goggles to spec, and even in ground use, an advantage to using a dedicated, built to spec binocular versus an uncollimated, bridged PVS-14.

The irony of the situation is that WhereNow&How isn’t wholly wrong in and that it’s not always a big deal for recreational ground-users, and articulating goggles, dedicated or not, are harder to collimate properly due to the rotational IPD adjustment that changes the relative position of the image intensifier (and hence the optical shift), which is why you don’t really see articulating goggles for aviation applications.

A lot of mil-specs are not necessarily relevant to most recreational and hobbyist users, do you really care that your PVS-14 can be submerged to 66 feet instead of only 5 or 10 feet?

What I do rather dislike, however, and sorry, I’m jumping off track a little bit here again, is the implication that I am simply “making shit up” to sell product, when I try to provide actual (and factual) technical information about products and why they may or may not be important to some applications, and why some things are considered better than others.

~Augee
 
I 100% notice that my dual 14's are not collimated. It could be something else (mechanical alignment, shitty brain, idk many variables probably exist), but there's something off about these. I probably notice only because I've professionally used dual tube nvg's for years. I can also 100% handle the collimation error. It's a minor issue - but I can also handle a scope that's been mounted canted... I still try to fix it. That being said, I can fix a canted scope for free. Not so much my 14's it seems. My 2 cents on collimation.

Interesting about MX 10160. Those don't have adjustable gain, right? I'm guessing that's what is also in PVS15's then which makes sense as I understand that 31's have some proprietary tubes that allowed adjustable gain. I didn't realize the pvs15 had aviation tubes in them. Neat.
 
@MarinePMI

I agree, this has become like a cat chasing its tail around.

However, despite the long, (all off in to the weeds interpretations of what it is opined I said) I would like to simply confirm in a quick summary format what I have clearly stated.

From my experience and the experience of others in my circle, if you take 2 PVS 14's that each have been collimated to their systems and you put them on Mod Armory Bridge in a dual configuration, me and my fairly large group of real users have not experienced any headaches.

So for us, the headache legend thing, is a non issue, albeit we all run 4 D pads in our helmets. Man those things must be magic.
 
Last edited:
I 100% notice that my dual 14's are not collimated. It could be something else (mechanical alignment, shitty brain, idk many variables probably exist), but there's something off about these. I probably notice only because I've professionally used dual tube nvg's for years. I can also 100% handle the collimation error. It's a minor issue - but I can also handle a scope that's been mounted canted... I still try to fix it. That being said, I can fix a canted scope for free. Not so much my 14's it seems. My 2 cents on collimation.

Interesting about MX 10160. Those don't have adjustable gain, right? I'm guessing that's what is also in PVS15's then which makes sense as I understand that 31's have some proprietary tubes that allowed adjustable gain. I didn't realize the pvs15 had aviation tubes in them. Neat.

Have you tried switching the -14's? I find I have to have the better tube in front of my dominant eye. Since you mentioned your professional use I'm sure you know how to fine tune the focus, but that's another thing that has caused me issues in the past with dual tubes (dual -14's or binos).
 
Have you tried switching the -14's? I find I have to have the better tube in front of my dominant eye. Since you mentioned your professional use I'm sure you know how to fine tune the focus, but that's another thing that has caused me issues in the past with dual tubes (dual -14's or binos).
Now that's an interesting point. I'll have to file this away for when I get my second 14 later this year.
 
Have you tried switching the -14's? I find I have to have the better tube in front of my dominant eye. Since you mentioned your professional use I'm sure you know how to fine tune the focus, but that's another thing that has caused me issues in the past with dual tubes (dual -14's or binos).
I actually did. It's not a matter of tube quality, I (think) that I can just tell that the tubes are pointed in slightly different directions. One combo seems less extreme than the other, but neither are very extreme. It's probably not off by more than like 2 degrees from each other (rough estimate based on assuming 1 finger at arms length ~30 mils? images seem to be drifted apart less than 1 fingers worth). With 31's, rotating each tube up and down doesn't shift the image much or at all. With dual 14's (and probably single 14's?) one tube shifts it slight down, the other shifts it slight left. . It's basically a non-issue that I'm not willing to pay to fix, but would do so if it was free and didn't mess up the purge.

One of y'all is right that error definitely exists. The other is also right in that it doesn't really matter (but it still exists).