/k/ommandos. I always wanted night vision and just saw pic related

Butler creek makes the lens caps, not the optic

>>32243983

It's gotten say something, somewhere, or they rubbed off the markings to pass it off as something else.

300 is like the price range for gen 1 scopes, so I'm sceptical already.

File: nv2.jpg (22KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 600x450px

>>32244024

Yeah that's what I figured. Still trying to find this thing online...

Here's another view.

>>32244043
Yeah I was immediately skeptical because the poster knows its a gen2 and has 4x zoom but doesn't know maker.

Smells like bullshit...but I could be wrong.

Also OP by scope he may mean just NV equipment. It doesn't seem to have adjustment turrets for the reticle. That might be keeping the price down if it's Gen2.

I have an older gen 1 that's just a handheld spotting scope type deal.

>>32244156
well the good thing is that I have a aimpoint compm4 that will work with this.

My plan is to mount this behind the aimpoint and use it to hunt boar.

I just want to know the specs to see if this will stand up to the elements like rain and mud. But my only resort is to look at pics on google search results.

>>32243983
OP here.
Still can't find shit on google... Maybe i'll just meet with the guy and see if I can find any markings and just look it up on the spot.

Anything I should lookout for? Not military myself, but I have been able to see through gen 1 and gen 2 nv to recognize the difference.

But that was only a couple minutes and I have no clue what to look for in cheaper equipment like this that may be a chinese knockoff.

>>32244156
It has adjustments. It has an Elcan M145/C79 base, the adjustments are that huge turret in the rear for vertical, and the other side has a flat head for windage. It moves the entire scope on the base as opposed to just the reticle.
>>32243983
Anyways, the scope that is mounted to the base isn't something I'm familiar with. All I know is that that is a Elcan M145/C79 base.

>>32246852
Yeah, meet at night so you can try them. I can tell you at $300 bucks sketchy af.

>>32243983
I highly doubt that's a Gen.2 unit, especially at that price, it's more likely a Gen.1 passive optic made for the commercial market.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's worthless, but you should definitely test it out before you buy it. If the seller refuses, it's a big red flag; if that happens I would just walk away from it.

>>32249953

Ok now that I think about it the only thing I really remember the difference between gen1 and gen2 is the shitty depth perception of gen1.

I mean there is no fucking way that this thing is gen2 right??? I mean with no markings what so ever? It has to be some chinese shit?

I don't want to waste my time but at the same time I don't want a deal to slip by and come across this thing for more $.

>>32250011
>>32249953

I guess my supplemental question was if I do see this thing was do I look for? Is there a simple test I can do at night to really know how good it is?

>>32250011
the main difference between Gen.1 and Gen.2 is that Gen.1 typically has poorer image quality and light amplification.

like I said, I highly doubt that it's Gen.2. If you're interested, ask the seller to meet you so you can try the unit out. If he's not trying to scam anybody, he really doesn't have any reason to refuse.