-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Military, military grade, consumer - what's what? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ted Y.
- Start date
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Ted,
I will only chime in that military grade may vary among different armies and navies. If you looked on that electronic auction site, there were binoculars, with a German name, being sold new, by a firm which advertises that its products were sold to military users. It was a very slick ad but short on details. I guessed that it was a mediocre product manufactured in Asia.
Incidentally, the Apache binocular, derived from a military unit, met a low bar in resolution.
Stay safe,
Arthur
I will only chime in that military grade may vary among different armies and navies. If you looked on that electronic auction site, there were binoculars, with a German name, being sold new, by a firm which advertises that its products were sold to military users. It was a very slick ad but short on details. I guessed that it was a mediocre product manufactured in Asia.
Incidentally, the Apache binocular, derived from a military unit, met a low bar in resolution.
Stay safe,
Arthur
WJC
Well-known member
“Military Grade” and other fish hooks for the inexperienced
There hasn’t been a military grade binocular made in America since the 1980s. It was the M19. And it was a disaster. (Attached)
The US military has been buying off the shelf from Japan and, most recently China, which is where so many “German” Steiners come from, for DECADES!!!
I have to leave the house, now. But soon, I will explain how ... MILSPEC works in the real world.
Bill (bursting sacred bubbles all day long) Cook
Attachments
There is a MILSPEC for almost anything, usually the same in most NATO countries. It may be deviated from. Mainly, binoculars for military use should be water- and dustproof, withstand shocks (dropping) and vibration, but in ny experience binoculars for soldier use are fairly standard.
Optics in sights and for special purposes are subject to export and sales restrictions and will not be available to the general public (you do not really need a thermal sight with its own power supply and aiming system for shooting armoured vehicles or planes?). Always remember the phrase "lowest bidder" when talking common soldier equipment. Spesialist equipment, on the other hand, is usually very good. And extremely expensive. MILSPEC refers to a set of standards, meaningless unless specified.
Binocollector
Well-known member
When it's sold to the general public, too, it is a consumer product. I know at least one member who won't accept this simple fact and who is since of today a new and the very first member of my ignore list.
I own two Komz 7x30 for instance. Those are used by the military but anyone can buy them. So how many of them have to be sold to the general public before they become a "consumer product"? Many of the specialised binos like the Zeiss 20x60S are also used by military forces.
I own two Komz 7x30 for instance. Those are used by the military but anyone can buy them. So how many of them have to be sold to the general public before they become a "consumer product"? Many of the specialised binos like the Zeiss 20x60S are also used by military forces.
No, I do not want that kind of optics. Nor I am interested.
Good to know and understand this.
I have an Oberwerk Mariner 8x40 which is used by the Chinese military under another name, it is built like a tank. So you can find some like that. I also have a Maven 7x28, which is the same magnification and diameter as the current US army binoculars. However, it is better quality. Some soldiers buy their own gear since as noted the military buys from the lowest bidder.
WJC
Well-known member
Even for the 20% chance that the following will slow this erroneous line of thought about “Military Grade Binoculars,” I will try.
I know people go weak in the knees over binos they think are “military grade.” And, too, there’s the fellow in Germany who wants everyone to know that Fraser sells to the general public. Well, so does Fujinon, so did Swift, so does Kamakura, so does Tamaya, So does Katsuma, so does ... a long line of consumer binoculars. And since they have all been used by the military, those with more opinions than facts will use them as “military grade” when, in fact, they’re just good binoculars. From my standpoint it’s like the guy who successfully removed a splinter touting himself as a brain surgeon. That might be good for the ego, but it does very little toward supporting the truth.
Reading these posts, one could get the idea that “military grade” means they were designed and built by Superman in the Fortress of Solitude. They were not. How this diehard BS got started is thoroughly explained in chapter 3 (Attached.)
Please enter the real world of the binocular industry where this mystique hasn’t been valid FOR AT LEAST THE LAST 60 YEARS except between the ears of the inexperienced and clueless who want to appear to be an “expert” on the subject. As I have pointed out, the LAST non-commercial, “military grade” binocular in the United States was the T14 which was produced as the M19 (the T13 was—you guessed it ... a 6x30). It was designed in 1955 by Farrand Optical and production started in the 1980s at the Frankfort Arsenal. It was a well-designed FLOP (see the M19 attachment, vignette 41) that was quickly retired, returning the military to buying off-the-shelf from Japan or China. Although at that time I think Steiners were still coming from Germany.
Is there a member of this forum who would tell us all EXACTLY what constitutes the—ever talked about—“military grade” binocular, I would be forever grateful. Even though in my 21 years at Captain’s I have dealt with dozens of procurement contracts, I know some expert wannabe will challenge me because they “have read or been told” this or that. Well, Hitler was a great statesman who wooed the masses of shallow thinkers, too.
Fact: From their beginning of the US military’s interest in the first part of the last century, there have only been 2 STANDARD models:
The 7 x 50 and the 6 x 30 (vignette 41).
Most of the procurement contracts say things like: “Must have a 50mm main lens” and “Must have a magnification (power of 7 times).
Whoopie! It’s been that way for DECADES! The procurement officer may think he is being technical (and he IS following protocol) ... he is also wasting time.
The main points that so much paper is wasted on is: : “Must have a 50mm main lens” and “Must have a magnification power of 7 times".
The US Navy was the source of the specs for the standard binoculars for all our branches of service. The test for rigidity consisted of DROPPING THE BINOCULAR FROM A HEIGHT OF 6 FEET INTO A BOX OF SAND. If collimation was maintained ... next.
These companies MADE binoculars all, or in part, for the US military. I once owned the civilian binocular (Bausch & Lomb) that became the Mk 28, when I was at Captain’s. However, some kind person thought they needed it more than I did, and decided to steal it.
—American Optical
—Anchor Optical
—Bell & Howell
—Bausch & Lomb
—Hayward Lumber
—Honeywell
—Kelvinator
—Kollsman
—Nash
—Nash/Kelvinator (after the merger)
—National Instruments Corporation
—New York Film Corporation
—Pioneer Instruments (A division of Bendix Aviation)
—SARD (Square D)
—Spencer Optical
—Universal Camera Corporation —Westinghouse
—Wollensak, and
—who knows who else ....
The Navy Mk 28, 30, 31, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, and at least a half dozen other models were all 7x50s. Originally, MILSPEC or MILSTD was needed. But by the 1970s, it was all but useless because Japan was producing instruments that were superior optically AND mechanically.
Sad experience has taught me that no matter what I say—even from firsthand experience—my post will be followed by someone who needs an ego stroke so badly he—with 0 practical experience—will dispute what I have said. So, to that person or persons I will say ... knock yourself out.
Attachments
Last edited:
Here is the tender specification for the last lot of British Army binocular that was won by the Steiner 8x30
www.mercell.com
Procurement of land system binocular capability.
OMGHere is the tender specification for the last lot of British Army binocular that was won by the Steiner 8x30
Procurement of land system binocular capability.
"...may have a requirement to purchase a Land System Binocular Capability (LSBC) to enable basic situational awareness for commanders, by allowing them to detect, recognise and identify objects from short range to a distance beyond the individual weapon sight in both normal and low light conditions. Potentially, the LSBC would replace all tri-service general purpose binoculars with the ability to visually interrogate large and small areas in addition to being a means of estimating size and distance...."
the worst part being "...the tri-service...", which would make those on ships shudder and infantry swear.
WJC
Well-known member
For years, I have made fun of the US Procurement contracts. But they couldn’t hold a candle to this garbage. If I had my way, it would say:
“rugged 7 x 50 binocular.” … period!
But then, lawyers have to eat too.
If you took all the attorneys in the world and laid them End to end, that would be a great thing… Especially if they were deep enough!
Last edited:
Yes, you should - and Shakespeare** should too !
**Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2
Post #10, procurement.
Why is an Oslo, Norway firm used?
Why is the performance of the human viewer not specified?
What does identification of a man sized target mean?
Is it a man?
Is it Fred Bloggs?
Is it a Yeti?
Very strange.
The best items seem to have come despite official interference.
The Mosquito aircraft was designed and built in house.
When ir was displayed using one engine, it was ordered.
The jet engine was dismissed by those at the top.
Regards,
B.
Why is an Oslo, Norway firm used?
Why is the performance of the human viewer not specified?
What does identification of a man sized target mean?
Is it a man?
Is it Fred Bloggs?
Is it a Yeti?
Very strange.
The best items seem to have come despite official interference.
The Mosquito aircraft was designed and built in house.
When ir was displayed using one engine, it was ordered.
The jet engine was dismissed by those at the top.
Regards,
B.
WJC
Well-known member
Don’t you know how many people I offend every time my fingers hit the keyboard? That’s just the price of humor on the Internet.
One of my best friends is an attorney. And he agrees with me!
I slopped The comment over from bellyaching about computer techs. They usually yet most of my ire.
This is especially true when I am dealing with a KDP (Amazon). Part of that problem… Is that I can’t speak Hindi!
A lot of requirements or definitions seems to be missing, but I am sure this info is in other documents.
A man sized target can be a standard target artifact used in military, not the men himself. And the characteristics of this one are known, right?
The performance of the human viewer is probably also standardized and know for a men/woman having combat capabilities.
Nothing also about temperatures or atmospheric pressure but this one ones must be detailed in some mil. standard.
The Norwegian website is one of those sites that collect requests to tender from organisations all over the world and aggregates them in one place. There are many such services but this was the first I found that the recent-ish British Army tender on.
Similar threads
