Insight AN-PEQ16

[JSantoro]

Yeah, you have, on average, about 2min of straight run-time on the white light. After that, you have just enough juice to run the laser(s) for a time. It's a problem.

The -16A is the go-to for A4/M4 within the GCE, with the -15 to be mounted onto crew-serves. I don't feel that the loss of how streamlined the -15 is on a personal weapon is worth a crappy white light and the added bulk of the -16A. And both the laser and light nodes are easily knocked off when banged against a HMMWV door at the wrong angle.

Better a -15 and a lo-pro light; better ergonomics, better light-life, less clunky, you can set it up so you don't need any @#$%& tape switches.

There is, however, an effort being made to replace the incandescent in the -16A with an LED head, to make for less power draw and better durability. Many of the -16As have had the bulbs pop under extended periods of fire, though that's more of an M4A1 thing.

[badcatbigbat]

You can't get the actual SU/233-PVS, but you can get a very very close model. Order the M3X-000-A23. The Remote part number is RMT-400-A8. There should be a LED model going out some time this summer.

This close, but not what I am looking for.
http://www.ambientsw.com/rcintcvl000c.html

[kenpstok151]

but are these for LEO/ Mil only?

[JSantoro]

Any Class 3B laser system is a restricted item, and most MFAL devices are of that class, in a large part because of the higher power outputs that allow them to push light to the distances they can.

For comparison, most pistol-mounted laser aiming devices are Class 3R (despite the higher letter "value," it's a lower power hazard-level classification; many of these devices are still marked by the old designation, which is Class 3a or Class IIIa). UPC code readers in the supermarket are Class 2. The lasers used on commercial handheld laser rangefinders are Class 1. Class 1 and 2 are essentially eye-safe, though one's odd hobbies should not include staring into ANY laser for longer than it takes one to flinch away from getting suddenly blasted with a spotlight, unless one is in the market for a white cane and a dog with a roller-suitcase handle attached to it. 3B and up, reflections off of specular reflective surfaces (polished metal, glass, water) are no joke to your eyes, and the energy from a Class 4 laser can do damage reflecting off of diffuse surfaces like parking-lot blacktop.

Laser Devices has a DBAL model that is and IR-capable Class 1 device, and is available for purchase by the general public. Same stuff on it, but the IR aim will be usable to around +/- 100m, depending upon the conditions it's used in, instead of the greater distance capabilities that the 3B devices have. TNVC sells them, among other vendors.

[Failure2Stop]

I don't know how I missed the original iteration of this thread, but here's my take if anyone cares:

Pass on the 16 and stick with the 15.
The 15 is rounded and low profile enough to be able to use the button for activation without having to dick around with tape switches, and works longer, better.
The 16 does not have the ability to "zero" the IR flood, which sucks.
Also, the claimed "100 lumens" is way high. 60 to 75, maybe, compared to my SureFires.

I first played with the 16 in 06 or 07, when the product testing team came to us for recommended improvements. They applied a few suggestions, but all in all it didn't improve much.

[El Pistolero]

So it appears the -16A sacrificed in several areas in order to integrate a visible white light into the same unit yet they are not liked as much as the -15. But yet they command high prices. I've seen the -16A selling for $4k a couple times, both times on eBay, and 3500 on the EE of another site. I've seen the -15 sell for 1800 so I know which one I would get if I had the coin for a NV setup and some patience.

[Rattlehead]

But yet they command high prices. I've seen the -16A selling for $4k a couple times, both times on eBay, and 3500 on the EE of another site.

I believe this is mostly due to its rarity on the civilian market.

[justlikeanyoneelse]

Technical improvements aside and unless I missed someone else's post, am I the only one that thinks the 16 is fugly...Kinda reminds me of the boeing x-32 haha

[JSantoro]

Last activity was over a year ago, and you had a burning need to post THAT?

That's neither a new question nor new info directly related the topic.