Night Vision N-Vision Optics Halo/Halo-LR Technical Questions and Comments

[Max_R]

Hello All,

I'm creating this thread to have a single place for discussions related to the technical aspects and performance issues of the Halo and Halo-LR scopes. Please bring your issues/comments/concerns here. I think that having a dedicated technical place is going to be beneficial to many users who will be looking for related info in the future.

Best regards,

Max.

 

[PowPowHawg]

Max tech question hereon the new MIL based reticles 7 and 8 with latest software/Halo LR. Been away form the scope a few days now. I hope Im reading/understanding previously posted information correctly but On 2x Digital zoom the the sub-tensions hold true mil Values Correct??? Based on the my views on target it seems they are cut in half upon each subsequent power selection from Digital 2x zoom to 4x and 4x to 8x??? Is it safe to assume 2x/1mil to 4x/.5mil and 4x/.5mil to 8x/.25mil??? Please help me with any info that may assist in making impacts on those 3-450 yd targets while making the most accurate use of the reticle in 4x/8x when condition allow. Thank you

 

[Killswitch Engage]

2 mil per hash at base, 1mil per hash at 2x, .5mil per hash at 4x

 

[Max_R]

Correct. For reticles 7 and 8 on Halo-LR. Double it for Halo.

2 mil per hash at base, 1mil per hash at 2x, .5mil per hash at 4x

 

[PlinkIt]

@Max_R

I have a question about the ability to disable certain magnification ranges

I know you can choose between
1x,2x
1x,2x,4x
1x,2x,4x,8x
But I would like to have the following option
50mm 1x,4x only
25mm 1x,8x only
Is this possible?

My reason for asking it's that the reticle makes the most sense to me as being 1/2 mil for short lines and 1 mil for long lines but I would like to be able to flip directly from the base mag to the appropriate mag for holdovers and directly back.

Thanks for any insight

 

[Max_R]

@PlinkIt The current software does not allow to choose enabled zoom levels the way you want it. Sorry. We'll have to think about it for future software releases. Maybe we can figure out a way to do it.

Thanks a lot for the idea!

 

[slim023]

Is there a way to make the reticle FFP instead of SFP?
I still would like a simpler reticle with just 2 hash marks below crosshairs. I am good to 275 with center, but a .5 and 1 mill would cover all of the ranges i need to shoot at night. Just less clutter in the image.

Now we need a monocular for scanning from you guys!
And a hat and t shirt so we can rep our favorite brand (even if I've had some problems i still love my halo)

I have emailed AAD lens covers with no reply. But a better lens cap is needed desperately!

 

[Max_R]

@slim023 thanks for good comments and suggestions.

Is there a way to make the reticle FFP instead of SFP?

It is possible. Unfortunately, due to some specifics of the BAE core, there may be some limitations. We are thinking about it.

I still would like a simpler reticle with just 2 hash marks below crosshairs. I am good to 275 with center, but a .5 and 1 mill would cover all of the ranges i need to shoot at night. Just less clutter in the image.

Thanks. We will consider adding a simplified reticle later. It makes a lot of sense.

Now we need a monocular for scanning from you guys!
And a hat and t shirt so we can rep our favorite brand (even if I've had some problems i still love my halo)

Noted.

I have emailed AAD lens covers with no reply. But a better lens cap is needed desperately!

I don't know what AAD is. Can you explain? We hear you and other users loud and clear about the need for a better lens cover for Halo-LRs. Thank you.

 

[Max_R]

Greetings!

We wanted to give an update on where we are with investigations into the case of “Halo failing to hold zero”.

Based on our testing, we believe that there are two distinctly different subcases that have occurred.

01 - We have examined a few units (few being less than 5 in this case) where the weapon mount was not seated properly or got loose for whatever reason. After the discovery of this problem, we added some extra testing to the production process and to our knowledge, the problem has not recurred.

02 - The second problem is related to the loss of zeroing information (reticle coordinates) under some conditions while using external batteries a.k.a. USB battery banks. More specifically, this problem happens when there is a momentary power loss or significant drop in voltage coming from the battery pack to the Halo/Halo-LR. The power/voltage drop happens under recoil and maybe related to the poor cable to the external power bank contact or due to something going on inside of the battery pack. Unfortunately, most of those battery banks are not rated for weapons nor outdoor use. The only thing that we know for a fact is that when the voltage drops from expected 5V (standard USB voltage) to something like 3.6V bad things happen and Halos start shutting down in totally unpredictable ways, including the loss of the zeroing info. You can think about this like a desktop computer that runs fine until the power plug is yanked out. You never know how it's going to behave upon reboot. It may be totally fine or you may get a nasty message that your computer was not shut down appropriately and something has to be done about it. We are working on a fix that will protect the memory that stores the zeroing info from abrupt power loss from external USB bricks but we are not quite there yet. Meanwhile, the easiest thing that a user can do to protect zeroing information is to write down the reticle position(s). If counters happen to be reset to zeros, the only thing that will have to be done is to move the reticle back to the earlier saved position.

We are not aware of any other causes that may manifest as related to the retention of zero by our scopes.

Sorry for the long explanation but I hope you may find it useful.

As a separate note, I would like to thank @wigwamitus (not associated with N-Vision Optics in any way) who encouraged me to make this post and was extremely helpful in discussing details and making great suggestions.

Best regards,

Max Rivkin.

 

[PlinkIt]

Thank you for the information @Max_R

I'm just now starting to set up external battery packs and find this raises some questions for me

Is this loss of voltage that causes memory loss issue mainly when running ONLY an external battery pack? I'm curious if keeping the internal batteries in place will allow the unit to take load back to the internal batteries during this recoil related power blink? Or does this issue happen even if the internal batteries are in place? I know the previous understanding was that the unit can prioritize external power over the internal, but can it switch in time during recoil?....

 

[Max_R]

@PlinkIt, Halos switch both ways between power sources giving priority to the external input. I strongly _suspect_ that if internal batteries are present and working the effect of the misbehaving external battery will be at the very least minimized if not completely mitigated. However, we are still in the process of testing different scenarios and testing is not completed so I can't say for sure that internal batteries will 100% help. I know that this is a vague answer but it's the best I have at the moment.

Thank you for the information @Max_R

I'm just now starting to set up external battery packs and find this raises some questions for me

Is this loss of voltage that causes memory loss issue mainly when running ONLY an external battery pack? I'm curious if keeping the internal batteries in place will allow the unit to take load back to the internal batteries during this recoil related power blink? Or does this issue happen even if the internal batteries are in place? I know the previous understanding was that the unit can prioritize external power over the internal, but can it switch in time during recoil?....

 

[Max_R]

Video showing how to one-shot zero Halo scopes. I hope that some people may find this useful :

 

[324matt]

Are you guys working on another update for the halo lr's?

I hear rumors of a halo LRF maybe in design testing. If so, would a current halo lr owner be able to send in a current unit, to have it upgraded to a lrf model? With a price of course.

 

[Max_R]

@324matt Thanks for checking but I can't comment one way or another on our production or development plans. I hope you understand.

 

[Killswitch Engage]

Greetings!

We wanted to give an update on where we are with investigations into the case of “Halo failing to hold zero”.

Based on our testing, we believe that there are two distinctly different subcases that have occurred.

01 - We have examined a few units (few being less than 5 in this case) where the weapon mount was not seated properly or got loose for whatever reason. After the discovery of this problem, we added some extra testing to the production process and to our knowledge, the problem has not recurred.

02 - The second problem is related to the loss of zeroing information (reticle coordinates) under some conditions while using external batteries a.k.a. USB battery banks. More specifically, this problem happens when there is a momentary power loss or significant drop in voltage coming from the battery pack to the Halo/Halo-LR. The power/voltage drop happens under recoil and maybe related to the poor cable to the external power bank contact or due to something going on inside of the battery pack. Unfortunately, most of those battery banks are not rated for weapons nor outdoor use. The only thing that we know for a fact is that when the voltage drops from expected 5V (standard USB voltage) to something like 3.6V bad things happen and Halos start shutting down in totally unpredictable ways, including the loss of the zeroing info. You can think about this like a desktop computer that runs fine until the power plug is yanked out. You never know how it's going to behave upon reboot. It may be totally fine or you may get a nasty message that your computer was not shut down appropriately and something has to be done about it. We are working on a fix that will protect the memory that stores the zeroing info from abrupt power loss from external USB bricks but we are not quite there yet. Meanwhile, the easiest thing that a user can do to protect zeroing information is to write down the reticle position(s). If counters happen to be reset to zeros, the only thing that will have to be done is to move the reticle back to the earlier saved position.

We are not aware of any other causes that may manifest as related to the retention of zero by our scopes.

Sorry for the long explanation but I hope you may find it useful.

As a separate note, I would like to thank @wigwamitus (not associated with N-Vision Optics in any way) who encouraged me to make this post and was extremely helpful in discussing details and making great suggestions.

Best regards,

Max Rivkin.

when you say weapon mount not seated properly...are you referencing the mount to optic interface/screws or the weapon mount to weapon picatinny rail interface?

 

[Max_R]

@Killswitch Engage, I was referring to the mount to the scope interface. It's the potential problem that is detectable in production. Mount to the Picatinny rail attachment is user-specific and we have no control over it. We can only hope that the user makes appropriate adjustments to the mount and it seats tight on the Picatinny rail.

when you say weapon mount not seated properly...are you referencing the mount to optic interface/screws or the weapon mount to weapon picatinny rail interface?

 

[wigwamitus]

@Max_R ... in responding to questions about the Halo units, I have repeated reason to RTFM (Read The "Fancy" Manual) . And in the manual I see that rechargable c123 are ok PROVIDED they are approved by N-VIsion. Yet, an approved list does not appear in the manual. Where can we view the approved list !!?

Thanks !!

 

[Jgunner]

Watching this thread!

 

[Max_R]

@wigwamitus Goog catch about our manual and the statement there about rechargeable batteries. Unfortunately, we were not able to come up with the list of "good" batteries or batteries that we really like. I will have to re-visit our manual. However, we strongly recommend the use of protected rechargeable batteries. The only real requirement for batteries is to have their positive contact stick out far enough to have a solid mechanical connection with contact pads in the battery compartment. We know that there are some batteries (for example, Olight) that have very short positive contacts and those don't work but we don't have a comprehensive list.

@Max_R ... in responding to questions about the Halo units, I have repeated reason to RTFM (Read The "Fancy" Manual) . And in the manual I see that rechargable c123 are ok PROVIDED they are approved by N-VIsion. Yet, an approved list does not appear in the manual. Where can we view the approved list !!?

Thanks !!

 

[wigwamitus]

So is there any baseline battery we can use for measurements ?? You guys must have tested with at least one battery !!

Like surefires ?? Can we base our battery measurements off the surefires ? And be maybe within +/- 0.05 inches in length and be good ?
(and check diameter to make sure not too wide to fit). Does the unit "step down" from any particular maximum voltage ?

==
I ask about voltage because I have a bunch of "Tenergy" recharges ... and they start out 3.8V+ after charging. I let them "cool" for 24 hours before putting them in the "ready for the field" box. So after charging they are in the "cooling for 24 hour box".
But "official" c123 voltage is more like 3.1V so are 3.7V rechargeables ok ?

 

[Max_R]

@wigwamitus SureFire batteries work just fine. Pretty much any battery with positive contact sticking out more than 0.04" should work fine (mechanically).

Electrically, we have not seen any batteries that are causing problems. With full charge rechargeable CR123 go up to 4.2 V and Halo/Halo-LR designed to work with this kind of input, as well as with non-rechargeable CR123 batteries. There is no need to "cool" rechargeable batteries if they will be used in our scopes.

I'd like to point out two things that are related to using rechargeable batteries:

1. The best rechargeable CR123 batteries hold about half of the charge of good non-rechargeable CR123 batteries. This means that battery life will be noticeably shorter.

2. Battery level estimations only work correctly for non-rechargeable batteries. In the case of rechargeable batteries, the battery level indicator can not be trusted.

Thanks,

Max.

So is there any baseline battery we can use for measurements ?? You guys must have tested with at least one battery !!

Like surefires ?? Can we base our battery measurements off the surefires ? And be maybe within +/- 0.05 inches in length and be good ?
(and check diameter to make sure not too wide to fit). Does the unit "step down" from any particular maximum voltage ?

==
I ask about voltage because I have a bunch of "Tenergy" recharges ... and they start out 3.8V+ after charging. I let them "cool" for 24 hours before putting them in the "ready for the field" box. So after charging they are in the "cooling for 24 hour box".
But "official" c123 voltage is more like 3.1V so are 3.7V rechargeables ok ?

 

[wigwamitus]

Yup, got it on the life of the rechargables ... in sub 0 temps ... in the COTI for instance, I get 10m run time on the tenergy rechargables and 15m run time with the TI lithiums.

Thanks so much for the data !!

 

[Max_R]

Question: Does turning Halo-LR on and off use more power than just leaving it on?

Answer: Halo-LR draws more power during the startup than during the normal operation. However, the startup sequence is rather short (a few seconds). Leaving the Halo-LR on for extended periods of time instead of turning it off is not going to save any battery life. However, if batteries are nearly dead they may not be able to provide enough "juice" during the power surge at startup and leaving the scope on may extend its life on a set of those nearly empty batteries. This is the only case that I can think of when it may be beneficial to leave the Halo-LR running instead of shutting it off from the power conservation point of view.

 

[TheHorta]

Just FYI, I get a good 2-3 hours per charge on a set of these in my LR:

This is the charger I use:

Zero issues during usage. No anomalies. I’ve run them for a couple of months now. My average night has never exceeded their capacity. When I get home, I remove the batteries and put them into the charger.

They’re cheap enough that I bought 40 of them and a couple of chargers. I now run them in ALL of my Surefires and Streamlights on my farm. Only my carry guns get fresh factory Energizer lithiums, for obvious reasons.

We were burning through 300-500 CR123s annually. These Klarus rechargeables are good for ~70% of fresh SF or Energizer batteries and they save us a bundle.

 

[TheHorta]

Any chance you have a 100mm Halo-XLR in the works? Seems natural, since you already have an Atlas 100mm. Send one to Horta for pre-release testing and feedback.

Also, I’d like to see a Halo-CO in 50mm and a COLR in 100mm (maybe a compromise do-it-all CO at 75mm) for a clip-on that would compete with the UTC-Xii. Dedicated thermals are great and all, but if you can afford a true clip-on like the UTC, you’ll never go back to a TWS once you’ve found Nirvana.

The Andres TigIR-6M is a lot of fun. I’d love to see you guys do an Nvision take on the TigIR.

 

[EWS6]

speaking of in the works, is there a mh25 competitor coming out soon?

 

[TheHorta]

speaking of in the works, is there a mh25 competitor coming out soon?

Bingo! Which would also be an American-made SkeetIRx competitor *with* the BAE 12um core.

Bring it home, Nvision!

 

[PlinkIt]

I'll 3rd.. 4th.. 5th.. whatever these ideas

I hope they make two different options for the helmet though

First one that's only for a helmet so they can hopefully keep the size, weight, and cost down as a better competitor for the iray market and be the 640 breach everyone was hoping for

Then a hardened unit that can do everything like the skeet / patrol, but we know this will cost more... but the price point, size, and weight would drive if it was feasible to only have one option here vs the two. Now if they could get the smaller size, weight, functionality and image while keeping it in the m300 patrol price range then I believe that would be a shut up and take my money moment for a good number of folks

 

[Max_R]

@TheHorta , @EWS6 , @PlinkIt : I really appreciate your ideas and suggestions. They do not go unnoticed. However, I can not comment one way or another on products that we are working on or not. I hope you understand.

 

[TheHorta]

@TheHorta , @EWS6 , @PlinkIt : I really appreciate your ideas and suggestions. They do not go unnoticed. However, I can not comment one way or another on products that we are working on or not. I hope you understand.

You don’t have to comment. Just send me engineering samples and I’ll keep my mouth shut.

 

[Rfeldhaus]

Is there a way to make the reticle FFP instead of SFP?
I still would like a simpler reticle with just 2 hash marks below crosshairs. I am good to 275 with center, but a .5 and 1 mill would cover all of the ranges i need to shoot at night. Just less clutter in the image.

Now we need a monocular for scanning from you guys!
And a hat and t shirt so we can rep our favorite brand (even if I've had some problems i still love my halo)

I have emailed AAD lens covers with no reply. But a better lens cap is needed desperately!

Couldn’t agree more on the lens caps needing upgraded.

 

[Max_R]

Since March or so Halo-LRs are shipped with a much better lens caps. Unfortunately, new caps are not backward compatible.

Couldn’t agree more on the lens caps needing upgraded.

 

[TheHorta]

That’s good (and bad) to know. Shows you’re listening.

 

[Bri0242]

Are the new caps Tenebraex?

 

[Max_R]

Are the new caps Tenebraex?

Yes

 

[PlinkIt]

Is there a list anywhere of the updates the Halo has seen already?

I notice a few things that seem different when having my two units side by side... But maybe it's just my imagination

The buttons on one appear to be more pronounced vs flush.
The cap on the new LR appear more like the cap that was on the 25mm.
Something also change with the mount interface on the bottom of the unit?

 

[Max_R]

@PlinkIt , your list of changes is pretty much complete and observations are accurate on all accounts. The mounting interface was changed just a little bit but most notably we went from threaded inserts to molded inserts which allow for a wider range of torque.

Is there a list anywhere of the updates the Halo has seen already?

I notice a few things that seem different when having my two units side by side... But maybe it's just my imagination

The buttons on one appear to be more pronounced vs flush.
The cap on the new LR appear more like the cap that was on the 25mm.
Something also change with the mount interface on the bottom of the unit?

 

[TheHorta]

As Plinkit mentioned, the Vortex Defender O-56 works GREAT on the front maw of the Halo-LR. It takes a little effort to stretch it over the rubberized cover, but once it’s on, it’s on!

O-32 on the back, O-56 on the front. Problem solved!

I love it!

 

[PlinkIt]

Good to know it's not just my imagination lol

Anything that we should know as far as mounting different mounts on the two different mount interfaces?

If someone purchased a bobro and decided to mount to either a threaded or molded insert version will the torque applied be the only difference? Or is there anything to note in fitment difference between the two?

Is there a general torque setting difference between the two for the mounts? Example if I pull both my mounts off to clean mud out... Should I be torquing threaded insert unit to "x" and molded insert unit to "y"?

 

[PlinkIt]

@horta glad it worked for ya

I'll tell ya a trick I realized help a little... Roll the rubber completely back onto the cap as if you are trying to roll it over the cover. Then hold it up to the Halo and once you start unrolling it'll pretty much attach itself with a slight pull to fully seat it

 

[TheHorta]

@Max_R If done properly, I assume if I rattle-can the Halo it won’t void the warranty (obviously if something happens as a result of painting it, but I plan to tape off the control panel and rail mount).

Also, do you either offer (a) a right-angle cable that is preferably much shorter (6-inches or so) or (b) do you know of someone who does? Is it a custom cable or a standardized one?

 

[SkyScrapin]

@TheHorta Are you saying the O-32 will fit any -14 style ocular? IE: cross compatible

 

[TheHorta]

@TheHorta Are you saying the O-32 will fit any -14 style ocular? IE: cross compatible

That would seem to be the case. Just tried it on my DTNVG and fit the same.

 

[Wingge]

@Max_R

I'm encountering a weird behaviour on a Halo LR when sighting in a rifle and am wondering if this behaviour parallels the issues with external batteries that have been mentioned previously. This Halo LR is relatively new, purchased about a month or two ago, and has been working flawlessly on two different ARs in 223. Maybe has 4-500 rounds of 223 under its belt. All of this with either an Anker 10000 mAh or an Insignia 15000 mAh battery pack velcro'd to top of scope.

I've recently swapped it over to an AR10 in 308 Win, and am in the process of sighting in this rifle in the third memory slot on the Halo. I'm sighting in at 50 yds with a homemade black electrical tape on aluminum foil target, and the Anker 10000 mAh battery on top. Here is the sequence of events that I am asking about:

• Fire single round at target to get OOM. Shot is high and right. NUC target and adjust reticle to first round penetration. Reticle at +5u, +3r.
• Fire 1st 3 round group on target. Group is tight slightly right and slightly high. NUC target and adjust reticle. Reticle at +6h, +4r
• Fire 2nd 3 round group on target to confirm. Group is tight but way right and way low. NUC target and adjust reticle. Reticle at -3d, +13r.
• Fire 3rd 3 round group on target. Shots are off target high and left. I reason that I made an error with the last judgement, revert reticle to +6h, +4r.
• Fire two rounds at target. Shots are tight and dead on.
• Fire 3 rounds at steel at 200yds. Shots are right and way low.
• Fire 4th 3 round group on target. Group is tight but way right and way low, same as 2nd group. Revert reticle to -3d, +13r.
• Fire 5th 3 round group on target. Group is tight and centered, 3/4" high at 50yds. Right where I want it.
• Continue to fire 20 or so rounds on steel at various ranges. This reticle position stays good throughout this volley, ringing steel.
• That night took the setup out for coyotes. Single coyote down at 150 or so. This reticle position (-3, +13) confirmed again.

So in summary, I had two significantly different reticle positions shooting to bullseye at alternating times in the sequence of events.

One of my theories for this behaviour is that the external battery might have been causing issues, hence this post. My other theory is that the reticle position was not resetting correctly between volleys as I'm not sure I was clicking to a new zoom level each and every time I changed the reticle position. I'm not sure if there is anything to this second theory, but it seems that the reticle resets a bit after a move when you first change zoom thereafter. It just seems that something is going on there (maybe just recenter?) that I'm not fully grasping.

So does this behaviour parallel the previously encountered external battery issues?

Thanks.

 

[Rfeldhaus]

@Max_R

I'm encountering a weird behaviour on a Halo LR when sighting in a rifle and am wondering if this behaviour parallels the issues with external batteries that have been mentioned previously. This Halo LR is relatively new, purchased about a month or two ago, and has been working flawlessly on two different ARs in 223. Maybe has 4-500 rounds of 223 under its belt. All of this with either an Anker 10000 mAh or an Insignia 15000 mAh battery pack velcro'd to top of scope.

I've recently swapped it over to an AR10 in 308 Win, and am in the process of sighting in this rifle in the third memory slot on the Halo. I'm sighting in at 50 yds with a homemade black electrical tape on aluminum foil target, and the Anker 10000 mAh battery on top. Here is the sequence of events that I am asking about:

• Fire single round at target to get OOM. Shot is high and right. NUC target and adjust reticle to first round penetration. Reticle at +5u, +3r.
• Fire 1st 3 round group on target. Group is tight slightly right and slightly high. NUC target and adjust reticle. Reticle at +6h, +4r
• Fire 2nd 3 round group on target to confirm. Group is tight but way right and way low. NUC target and adjust reticle. Reticle at -3d, +13r.
• Fire 3rd 3 round group on target. Shots are off target high and left. I reason that I made an error with the last judgement, revert reticle to +6h, +4r.
• Fire two rounds at target. Shots are tight and dead on.
• Fire 3 rounds at steel at 200yds. Shots are right and way low.
• Fire 4th 3 round group on target. Group is tight but way right and way low, same as 2nd group. Revert reticle to -3d, +13r.
• Fire 5th 3 round group on target. Group is tight and centered, 3/4" high at 50yds. Right where I want it.
• Continue to fire 20 or so rounds on steel at various ranges. This reticle position stays good throughout this volley, ringing steel.
• That night took the setup out for coyotes. Single coyote down at 150 or so. This reticle position (-3, +13) confirmed again.

So in summary, I had two significantly different reticle positions shooting to bullseye at alternating times in the sequence of events.

One of my theories for this behaviour is that the external battery might have been causing issues, hence this post. My other theory is that the reticle position was not resetting correctly between volleys as I'm not sure I was clicking to a new zoom level each and every time I changed the reticle position. I'm not sure if there is anything to this second theory, but it seems that the reticle resets a bit after a move when you first change zoom thereafter. It just seems that something is going on there (maybe just recenter?) that I'm not fully grasping.

So does this behaviour parallel the previously encountered external battery issues?

Thanks.

I have seen significant vertical added when zooming in. If I zero the halo to the center of a sheet of paper with no zoom and take it to 8x to confirm a good solid 0 it will have moved enough to be off the paper. I had called on trouble shooting the issue but never got a return call about what may be the case. I haven’t had time to do any further testing.

 

[Max_R]

@PlinkIt, good questions. The recommended torque setting for threaded inserts is 16 in-lb. The recommended torque setting for molded inserts is 20 in-lb. It's always recommended to use Loctite.

Anything that we should know as far as mounting different mounts on the two different mount interfaces?

If someone purchased a bobro and decided to mount to either a threaded or molded insert version will the torque applied be the only difference? Or is there anything to note in fitment difference between the two?

Is there a general torque setting difference between the two for the mounts? Example if I pull both my mounts off to clean mud out... Should I be torquing threaded insert unit to "x" and molded insert unit to "y"?

 

[Max_R]

@TheHorta : painting, as long it is not damaging (tape off switches + rail mount + external connector + optics + slots between moving parts of the eyepiece) will not void the warranty but in case of repair work we may not be able to preserve or restore the custom paintwork.

We don't have any shorter right angle cables. I believe that our standard length is 12 inches. I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there that can cut a piece of it out and re-solder/re-isolate but we don't do it. Tim Eckert (I don't know him personally) on FaceBook was offering custom cables for Halo/Halo-LR. You may look him up.

@Max_R If done properly, I assume if I rattle-can the Halo it won’t void the warranty (obviously if something happens as a result of painting it, but I plan to tape off the control panel and rail mount).

Also, do you either offer (a) a right-angle cable that is preferably much shorter (6-inches or so) or (b) do you know of someone who does? Is it a custom cable or a standardized one?

 

[Max_R]

@Wingge : the behavior that you are describing does not seem to be related to use of the external battery. With pour contact to the external battery or battery voltage dropping down under recoil the scope completely loses zeroing information, and you are left with 0,0. If you continue seeing your problem, we may have to take a look at your Halo-LR. The shift that you are describing may be related to the weapon mount not being seated properly/under torqued on the Halo-LR or is not tight enough on the rail and the scope shifts around slightly. Unlikely, but it may be something else however it's impossible for us to diagnose remotely. Please let me know how it's looking or call our office if things do not feel right.

@Max_R

I'm encountering a weird behaviour on a Halo LR when sighting in a rifle and am wondering if this behaviour parallels the issues with external batteries that have been mentioned previously. This Halo LR is relatively new, purchased about a month or two ago, and has been working flawlessly on two different ARs in 223. Maybe has 4-500 rounds of 223 under its belt. All of this with either an Anker 10000 mAh or an Insignia 15000 mAh battery pack velcro'd to top of scope.

I've recently swapped it over to an AR10 in 308 Win, and am in the process of sighting in this rifle in the third memory slot on the Halo. I'm sighting in at 50 yds with a homemade black electrical tape on aluminum foil target, and the Anker 10000 mAh battery on top. Here is the sequence of events that I am asking about:

• Fire single round at target to get OOM. Shot is high and right. NUC target and adjust reticle to first round penetration. Reticle at +5u, +3r.
• Fire 1st 3 round group on target. Group is tight slightly right and slightly high. NUC target and adjust reticle. Reticle at +6h, +4r
• Fire 2nd 3 round group on target to confirm. Group is tight but way right and way low. NUC target and adjust reticle. Reticle at -3d, +13r.
• Fire 3rd 3 round group on target. Shots are off target high and left. I reason that I made an error with the last judgement, revert reticle to +6h, +4r.
• Fire two rounds at target. Shots are tight and dead on.
• Fire 3 rounds at steel at 200yds. Shots are right and way low.
• Fire 4th 3 round group on target. Group is tight but way right and way low, same as 2nd group. Revert reticle to -3d, +13r.
• Fire 5th 3 round group on target. Group is tight and centered, 3/4" high at 50yds. Right where I want it.
• Continue to fire 20 or so rounds on steel at various ranges. This reticle position stays good throughout this volley, ringing steel.
• That night took the setup out for coyotes. Single coyote down at 150 or so. This reticle position (-3, +13) confirmed again.

So in summary, I had two significantly different reticle positions shooting to bullseye at alternating times in the sequence of events.

One of my theories for this behaviour is that the external battery might have been causing issues, hence this post. My other theory is that the reticle position was not resetting correctly between volleys as I'm not sure I was clicking to a new zoom level each and every time I changed the reticle position. I'm not sure if there is anything to this second theory, but it seems that the reticle resets a bit after a move when you first change zoom thereafter. It just seems that something is going on there (maybe just recenter?) that I'm not fully grasping.

So does this behaviour parallel the previously encountered external battery issues?

Thanks.

 

[Max_R]

@Rfeldhaus , first of all, I apologize that nobody got back to you. Technical side: I can not imagine how a vertical shift can be added when zooming in. I know that our math is correct and we use exactly the same software that has been proven to work fine for all systems. If you are really seeing a shift (I can not understand why it would be limited to vertical and not horizontal) it may be related to something else but for whatever reason, you only observed it when also changing the zoom level. Please give us a call if this strange behavior persists.

I have seen significant vertical added when zooming in. If I zero the halo to the center of a sheet of paper with no zoom and take it to 8x to confirm a good solid 0 it will have moved enough to be off the paper. I had called on trouble shooting the issue but never got a return call about what may be the case. I haven’t had time to do any further testing.

 

[SkyScrapin]

@Rfeldhaus , first of all, I apologize that nobody got back to you. Technical side: I can not imagine how a vertical shift can be added when zooming in. I know that our math is correct and we use exactly the same software that has been proven to work fine for all systems. If you are really seeing a shift (I can not understand why it would be limited to vertical and not horizontal) it may be related to something else but for whatever reason, you only observed it when also changing the zoom level. Please give us a call if this strange behavior persists.

This level of CS makes me want to spend all the moneys. You guys release a monocular the size of the Skeet or a risley prismed clipon, and I’ll be first in line.