PEQ-15 vs DBAL-A2

[RustedAce]

I can't speak to how much NOD capabilities our enemies have,

Theres tons of NVG junk sitting around for sale at Torkham pass. That "fell off trucks"

So Id say they have it.

[Titleist]

Jason, thanks for your input on your preferences between the two models.

[JSantoro]

so the winner is...PEQ 15 green.

For all the reasons stated, plus the fact that civilians can buy the Class I DBAL variant.

M4Guru's words about an illuminator capability of some sort is entirely valid, too. Maybe one does not have a need to be able to IR illuminate the dark-well space beyond an open doorframe of a building 300m out, but if you've convinced yourself that the expenditure of a few $k to provide yourself with a means of seeing in reduced visibility, then it's a given that some thought should be given to being able to actively IR illuminate your environment (cave, basement...in the woods under an overcast sky), even if it's just a dual-capable flashlight head.

Pointer-only in the IR spectrum is, at best and in the words of Mr. Franklin, penny wise/pound foolish.

[Iraq Ninja]

Lots of excellent info here from our Subject Matter Experts.

I would like to ask the SMEs about their experience on what is their preference in regards to which rail they find more effective- top or side?

PEQs are still being issued over here to the average grunt, and the majority are on the top rails. FYI, most units seem to have an SOP to tie the PEQs down with 550 cord. Are there any worthy PEQ 15 mounts besides the issued one?

[Bowser]

Interesting read about IR lasers. Thanks.

[mcmillanman5]

^ Agreed, thanks for all the knowledgeable replies.

[Jason Falla]

Lots of excellent info here from our Subject Matter Experts.

I would like to ask the SMEs about their experience on what is their preference in regards to which rail they find more effective- top or side?

PEQs are still being issued over here to the average grunt, and the majority are on the top rails. FYI, most units seem to have an SOP to tie the PEQs down with 550 cord. Are there any worthy PEQ 15 mounts besides the issued one?

I always mount my laser on the top rail and here's why:

I mount my surefire V series on the right hand rail. I keep the left hand rail clean for support hand placement, which leaves the top rail for the laser. Also when I sling my weapon nothing digs into me (good when you have to walk around a green zone with a weapon for long periods).

Some considerations on placement.
If you have a PEQ 2 and a 7" rail, you don't have much room to move! I have a 12" free float rail with low mount gas block that gives me plenty of space for mounting the laser. I would like to mount it as close to the middle of the gun as possible for balance but the support hand interferes with the beam if the illuminator. You also get shadow from the front sight assembly.

So I mount it close to the front sight so that the beam clears the sight housing and hand placement does not interfere. I place my flashlight switch in between the top/right rails and access it with my fingers. I have my laser switch in between the top/left rails and access it with my thumb.

This allows me to maintain the same grip on the weapon during the day and night and allows me to access all controls and switches easily and intuitively.

If my remote switch fails, I can use my thumb to climb up on top of the unit to fire the laser.

In relation to the mounting options. I have never had an issue with any of the issued mounts. I make sure that when I mount the device, I tighten the screw finger tight if it allows and then tighten it 1/4 turn with a screw driver. A good soldier always checks to ensure that all weapon accessories are tight and tested and that batteries are replaced for new ones for every patrol/mission.

I have seen some of the boys with a para cord lanyard on PEQs too. Unit SOP is unit SOP, you don't want to be that guy that lost one!

I hope that this helps out.

[TehLlama]

My question for those who have had the opportunity to run multiple setups is how a dual-range Surefire unit (like the 6V vampire units) would serve as a replacement to having the IR illuminated integral to the laser unit and having a separate white light.
I understand the limitation of only having a pointer unit, but how big a limitation would it be to have only a white OR IR illumination source (with the handicap of having to manually switch its mode), or is that too much capability to give up in a MOUT environment.

I keep my work PEQ15 mounted 12:00 as far back as possible, but I do find myself getting a fair bit of bloom off my support hand when I stick my hand in front of the beam like an idiot. This is the same grip I'd use with a dual pressure switch, so I'm not totally ready to commit to this arrangement.

I've seen tons of guys with M16's running them front side mount, and even some of our senior guys running their PEQs at 6:00 (ugh), with more emphasis being placed on how the 550 dummy cording is done than on how the unit even operates (I think I'm the only person in my Bn who has even read the entire PEQ15 manual)

[JSantoro]

It'd only truly serve as a replacement of sorts for an IR laser illuminator to those who do not have the need to illuminate past, say, 0-70m. The laser flood pushes farther, is all

As for a dual-capable vampire head, the manual aspect of that is not really any different than the beam divergence adjuster on an IR laser flood or the mode select switch for the device; that's buttonology, which everybody dorks up at some point or another. Wars of words rage as to whether one keeps the flood dialed tight, dialed wide, or to a middleground, diffused or undiffused . One is still gonna have to manually fiddle with SOMEthing; all you do is trade one set of complications for a different but related set. Which set is more desirable...? An individual user not limited by SOP needs to decide that for himself.

In terms of the various ways of dummy cord, it can be (and often is) overdone, by which I do not mean the act of tying something down, but how tight. It's less likely to happen with the metal body of a DBAL, and less likely with any unit to happen if 550 cord is used, but the combo of large zip-ties with the polymer bodies of other PEQ devices....it's irritating to get through getting a company's worth of PEQs coaligned and confirmed, then watch them crank on zip-ties and flex the body of the optic in doing so, and end up changing how the aim lasers point. Pleas to secure the devices prior to dialing them in (in such a way as to NOT have a zip-tie laying across an adjuster...) will often get one a head-tilt, confused look a Scooby-Doo noise, and be promptly ignored or forgotten.

Those poly devices have a loop molded into the rear of the body for a reason. Gut a short length of 550, tie that loop to the rail.....done. There's no need to get out a ratchet-strap and try to pressure-fuse the thing to the barrel.

Something in terms of mounting....the polymer-bodied devices utilize a part of the polymer body to form a part of the rail interface, with the clamping bar portion being metal. One mounting error seen that impacts this in particular (but any mount in general) is not making sure that the whole surface is contacting and cinched to rail. The poly part is 3x the length of the metal clamping bar, so if one mounts the device so far forward that there is rail interface surface floating forward of where the railed forearm ends, recoil impulse can make the body flex and pivot on the rail, thereby loosening the mount, with subsequent loss of zero and even having the device come of the rail if the user is really inattentive.

That's more likely to happen in a 3 or 6 o'clock configuration, as whatever front sight @ 12 o'clock prevents one from shoving an MFAL too far forward to have rail interface surface overhanging...unless there is rail past any irons. In any case, it's a good idea to make sure that the entire mount is contacting rail. It seems very "Duh!" but the opposite has been done often enough that about 40k rounds were expended at Yuma to figure out why it was happening. Lo and behold, the device was fine when it was mounted right, but went to hell once the actual (incorrect) too-far-forward-to-mate-right position being reported upon was successfully replicated.

[Victor]

In terms of the various ways of dummy cord, it can be (and often is) overdone, by which I do not mean the act of tying something down, but how tight. It's less likely to happen with the metal body of a DBAL, and less likely with any unit to happen if 550 cord is used, but the combo of large zip-ties with the polymer bodies of other PEQ devices....it's irritating to get through getting a company's worth of PEQs coaligned and confirmed, then watch them crank on zip-ties and flex the body of the optic in doing so, and end up changing how the aim lasers point. Pleas to secure the devices prior to dialing them in (in such a way as to NOT have a zip-tie laying across an adjuster...) will often get one a head-tilt, confused look a Scooby-Doo noise, and be promptly ignored or forgotten.

Here I thought all those zip ties were to hold together those old (now discontinued) PAQ-4 C's and the still out there PEQ-2A's when a body bash occurs! Another reason for the zips back then. Guys still old schooling zipping the ATPIALS? The current polymer not near as brittle as the PAQ's and PEQ's.

Good post Paul.