From: Bob.Clarke%bbs@actcnews.res.utc.com (Bob Clarke)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 10:37:44 EDT
Organization: United Technologies Research Center
Subject: Re: Laser gunsights (was: Info on CO2lasers wanted
Distribution: world
Reply-To: Bob.Clarke%bbs@actcnews.res.utc.com (Bob Clarke)
X-Posting-Software: UniBoard 1.10a S/N 190921

In message <1993Jan10.001114.1112@cmkrnl.com>
dated 10 Jan 93 08:11:14 GMT
jeh@cmkrnl.com writes:

> In article <1993Jan09.101114.7239@actcnews.res.utc.com>, 
> Bob.Clarke%bbs@actcnews.res.utc.com (Bob Clarke) writes:
> > In message <6899@tuegate.tue.nl> dated 8 Jan 93 12:44:28 GMT
> > wouter@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Wouter Slegers) writes:
> > 
> >> jeh@cmkrnl.com wrote:
> > 
> >> : I would also point out that the claim of "perfect targetting" for a lase
r 
> >> : gunsight just isn't so -- elevation and windage still are factors -- 
> >
> >> Correct, but it does give some extra targetting info..
> >> 
> >> : *seeing* the dot of light from a 2 mW laser at any reasonable distance, 
in 
> >> : anything other than pitch blackness, is damned near impossible.  
> > 
> > True, but laser targeting systems do not use the naked human eye!!!  Most
> > laser targeting system do not operate in the visible range, and are used 
> > in conjunction with a remote viewing device such as night vision.  The army
 
> > has a system were they bore sight a laser to a m16 rifle, the user is weari
ng
> > night vision goggles, the laser is only visible to people wearing goggles. 

> > Where ever the dot lands is dead!  It is good to about 50 yards, I think!
> 
> (1) The subject under discussion was not a military laser targeting system.  
If
> you had bothered to read the entire thread, rather than thinking you could ju
mp
> into the middle and explain everything to everyone, you would have seen that 
my
> comments were in response to an article which proposed strapping a 2 mW HeNe
> atop a rifle.  No IR lasers, no beam modulators, and certainly no night visio
n
> goggles keyed to the beam modulator.  (The latter two points, btw, are
> essential if the system is to work in anything other than total darkness.)  I
n
> that context my objections are entirely justified. 
> 
> (2)  I suggest you go back and reread those back issues of _Guns and Ammo_ or

> _Soldier of Fortune_ (reading obviously being the closest you've ever gotten 
to
> a military rifle).  Nobody in their right minds, and not the military either,

> would bother with such a system if it was limited to a 50 yard range.  
> 
> P.S. - in the future, try reading _Defense Electronics_ instead.  Or if that'
s
> too difficult (I realize, there's lots of fine print and comparatively few
> pictures), at least THINK a little about what you're writing.  Christ, if my
> enemy is only 50 yards away, I don't need precision sighting -- I'll just emp
ty
> a clip in his general direction.  
> 
> 	--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA
> Internet:  jeh@cmkrnl.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com
> Uucp:  ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh

Your comments are not justified!  Actually you are quite rude.

1) NVGs are not keyed to the LSS for the M16.
2) I don't read Guns and Ammo.
3) I do read Defense Electronics. I have a MS in Physics (optics)
4) I designed and built a Helmet Mounted Infantry Display for the ARMY
   , Fort Belvoir.  I am somewhat familar in this area.
5) The right minds in the military do bother with a LSS that is good for 
   50 yards, and actually they love it!
6) "I'll Just empty a clip in his general direction" shows your level of
thinking.  Such as Soldier of Fortune.

Christ, grow up.  For the rest of you, please forgive my reply, I will not
response further.
--
Bob Clarke, user of the UniBoard System @ actcnews.res.utc.com
E-Mail: Bob.Clarke%bbs@actcnews.res.utc.com
========================================================================
   United Technologies Corporation
   Opinions expressed do not necessarily represent UTC.
Newsgroups: sci.electronics