PDA

View Full Version : anti-laser coating


Ahab
2 December 2000, 14:57
Thought I'd try posting this here:


I was looking at this pic posted by JY and had a question about the caption: http://clubs.excite.com/photo/inspector?cid=.s2JA8Z_9CtN&aid=21&subject=no&auth=&oid=5551712&poid=4550720
... Does this mean that the RX01NSN sold by trijicon to civilians isn't the same as that in the SOPMOD kit? Are the ACOG TA01NSN and the Aimpoint Comp/M the same i.e. w/ anti-laser coating for U.S. mil., w/o for civie sales?
This post is pure curiosity.. I don't anticipate getting a laser in my eyes anytime soon.
Thanks for your help JY and any RKIs who might come to my aid..

0802
2 December 2000, 19:52
That filter looks a lot like the polarized filters that come with the Reflex IIs. The anti-laser filters used on US military systems where only recently declassified and available for public sales. Although they offer limited protection for all battlefield lasers, they are only offer minimal protection for non Neodinuem YaG (the spelling is a bit off it has been 5 plus years since I went to the CAT I course) lasers. They are designed to filter 1.06 nanometer non-eye safe lasers used by the US for range finding and designation. Some enemy system are in a wave length that the filters provide little protection for though.

JY
3 December 2000, 19:00
Actually, that's the position favored for CQB with NODs being used. Mounted on the receiver in a "normal" position it's hard to get a decent "sight" picture, the objective ring interfears blocking out some of your target(not to mention slamming your NOD objective into the receiver and the sight itself). Because the Reflex has ZERO paralax it works well no matter where it's mounted.

Take care...Jim

JY
3 December 2000, 21:47
Yup, use it a lot, and fully understand the operation and theory of this sight. Yup like it back on the front section of the receiver when using the MK1 eyeball..like a PEQ2(or visable laser) better for CQB/night but also is a good aiming point for the goblins....works better with NVGs forward mounted, hard to get a good cheek weld with them on, or even worse a M40 or other protective mask..nope no squint with 7Ds or whatever, can see the amber dot very well and the objective ring is less defined, and you gain a lot more peripheral vision as it may be with NVGs. Can see the dot very well across the room where one sits on a bench at the moment as I'm typing(M4A1 in cleaning vise, MTM made)

Also if you read(OPEN SOURCE NON RESTRICTED TITLE PER DOD/SOCOM) SW370-BM-OPI-010 "Operators Manual" Reflex Sight With Adapter to Fit M4A1 Carbine Accessory Kit Program SOPMODM-4A1" page 4 paragraph 4 quote "The Reflex Sight can be placed at various positions. the adapter studs can engage any of the grooves. The farthest forward mount position on the reciever OR anywhere on the Rail Interface System(RIS) are the two positions recommended. Placing the sight too far back will obscure peripheral vision." also "Figure 4-M4A1 carbine with Rail Interface System Equipped with a RX01M4A1" clearly illustrates, without squinting, this mounting forward behind the front sight tower, as well as on the forward section of the receiver for DAY NON NOD USE.Also page 12 "Operation-Night Vision Equipment" para 1."The reflex Sight is compatible with current issue night vision goggles and pocket scopes. the sight is usable with head/helmet, as well as weapon mounted night vision devices. it should be mounted forward on the receiver or TOP RIS rail(the sight body will ghost out but the dot will be clear for aiming) if a RIS is NOT installed, it should be mounted to the far forward position on the upper receiver rail and must NOT PHYSICALLY INTERFERE with the night vision goggles used.Use of weapon mounted IR light sources aids performance and increases range.However, this does provide a vivid IR signiture to the enemy. Such devices would include IR filtered flashlights, IR diode, and IR laser illuminators." A second source for USSOCOM/USASOC operators SW370-B8-OPI-010 pertaining to the RIS use and support.

Sorry for the long post but it is all relevant to your reply and none of it violates any restrictions, security,operator tactics, unit tactics, operator technigues, unit SOPs,or capabilities, real or imagined.

Jim

[This message has been edited by JY (edited 12-03-2000).]

Ahab
4 December 2000, 01:10
Thanks for all the replies gentlemen!

JAW
4 December 2000, 21:25
I received some information on this topic from Trijicon. It is posted on the following thread
http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/Forum37/HTML/000256.html