Yes, I know that adding a laser to your rifle makes you a mall ninja. However, I have a pretty good reason for wanting to do it (I'll explain at the end). Yes, I'm going to do it. No, I'm not going to change my mind. Let's not turn this into a discussion of the relative worth of tacticrap.
Here are my questions:
Fed.gov limits the outputs of lasers (for our own safety), and many of the makers seem to say or imply that their laser is the brightest allowable under the law. From this I gather that the light output from most of the lasers is substantially similar. Is this correct?
If so, is it correct to believe that most of the price difference is due to the basic quality/durability of the device and the battery life, and not so much due to the quality/visibility/brightness of the dot? I am aware that green seems brighter to the human eye and the lasers that produce green beams are more expensive to manufacture, so that is one price difference.
Finally, if you were to select a laser for a rifle, which laser would you go with, and why? Assume the purpose would be night-time CQB and engagement out to 100 yds.
Thanks,
Mike
PS The reason is this. I have a KTR which has a dust cover rail/iron sight which holds its zero very well. However, the return to zero capabilities are less than ideal, which is problematic if you actually believe in cleaning your rifle. It looks like the RTZ error is well eithin the "wobble area" of me using iron sights in practical combat shooting, so this leads me to try and not turn this rifle into something it isn't (by trying to figure out a way to put a red dot or low power scope on it) and embrace what it is (a simple little iron-sight fighting carbine with rails on the forearm). One way to do this is to keep the irons and add a laser and light to the forward rail system, and turn it into a nice "night fighter".
Here are my questions:
Fed.gov limits the outputs of lasers (for our own safety), and many of the makers seem to say or imply that their laser is the brightest allowable under the law. From this I gather that the light output from most of the lasers is substantially similar. Is this correct?
If so, is it correct to believe that most of the price difference is due to the basic quality/durability of the device and the battery life, and not so much due to the quality/visibility/brightness of the dot? I am aware that green seems brighter to the human eye and the lasers that produce green beams are more expensive to manufacture, so that is one price difference.
Finally, if you were to select a laser for a rifle, which laser would you go with, and why? Assume the purpose would be night-time CQB and engagement out to 100 yds.
Thanks,
Mike
PS The reason is this. I have a KTR which has a dust cover rail/iron sight which holds its zero very well. However, the return to zero capabilities are less than ideal, which is problematic if you actually believe in cleaning your rifle. It looks like the RTZ error is well eithin the "wobble area" of me using iron sights in practical combat shooting, so this leads me to try and not turn this rifle into something it isn't (by trying to figure out a way to put a red dot or low power scope on it) and embrace what it is (a simple little iron-sight fighting carbine with rails on the forearm). One way to do this is to keep the irons and add a laser and light to the forward rail system, and turn it into a nice "night fighter".
will be along to straighten it out I'm sure.If I'm on the right track, they should be able to tell you whether its shorter on longer wavelengh you want for what, as I dont recall, and physics was a LONG time ago.