OT: New gun sight design

Loading thread data ...

formatting link

Or, for normal pistol targeting distances, try one of these:

Carla

There is a very good reason that there are so many mass shootings at schools and other gun free zones. Those inclined to do such a thing know that they can shoot people with impunity for quite awhile before anyone with a gun shows up. This policy is foolish to the point of lunacy. Do you really think anyone who has evil in mind will leave their guns in the car? - JP Clark

Reply to
Carla Fong

formatting link
>

I have been seeing these. They are plastic, so I wonder about the accuracy after being subjected to temperature differentials. But then, most shooting is at short range, and most shooting that involves adrenaline drives down the hit % drastically.

Steve

Reply to
Steve B

I bought a Rd Laser pointer at the local WalMart for $2.47 plus tax. I had some scrap Aluminum That I used to make a holding frame and an on/off switch for the laser. I had several small but extremely strong magnets I used to attach this to the top frame rail on my S7W Model 22 in .22 Long Rifle. It works great at the indoor range but in daylight it is too dim to see. The first time I used it at the indoor range another shooter saw it and offered me $75 for it. I sold it. He was shooting a Colt Gold Cup and the recoil was too much for the magnets with the .45ACP rounds. But when he put the .22 Barrel on it the laser worked great.

I have thought about using a Green Laser but they are pretty expensive. However even if I have to pay $100 for a Green laser I would have $150.00 left versus the store bought stuff. If any of you have used a Green Laser how did they work in full daylight?

DL

Reply to
TwoGuns

Farther range, more apparent (eye is more sensitive to green).

If you want to check out the wild side, look at

formatting link
(if they are still around). Oh, my God, they have 500mW lasers!. Awesome. You can see a 75mW beam all the way at night, illuminate clouds. Do NOT play sky tag with them. Way overpowered for use on a projector screen (too much backscatter).

Reply to
Louis Ohland

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:59:04 -0800, the infamous Carla Fong scrawled the following:

formatting link
I'm unimpressed so far. Having watched the video, I don't see a real difference between a standard slotted/notched sight and his truncated triangle. Do you? How is that easier, consciously or subconsciously?

Carla, how does Crimson Trace get nearly the price of a weapon for a pair of grips with a $3 laser in 'em? $100 I can see, but $329? Gimme a break. That said, I'd love to have a set.

Excellent thoughts and great sig.

-- Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm). -----------

Reply to
Larry Jaques

500mW?

At work I program 4kW LASERS. Can't figure out how to mount one on a pistol, though.

David

Reply to
David R.Birch

The "200mW" one I have is *very* sensitive to temperature- cool it down a bit and it pretty much goes dark (warning: the IR pump laser for the DPSS crystal might still be putting spitting out invisible light-- maybe they put a filter in there to block the IR, maybe not).

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

How about a remote controlled turret?

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

formatting link

Utterly useless in his application, Both NRA conventional pistol and International Pistol forbid any sight that projects light onto the target. International Pistol forbids anything except Iron sights.

For international Rapid fire pistol, easy target acquisition is key.

"Rapid Fire Pistol: Rapid Fire Pistol includes firing once each at five adjacent targets in timed stages of eight, six, and four seconds. Competitors must begin each rapid fire string with the pistol pointed down at a 45 degree angle, and when time begins they must raise the pistol and engage the targets before time runs out! Pistols for this event are identical to those used for Sport Pistol and Standard Pistol."

Stuart

Reply to
Stuart Wheaton

If you have a 4KW laser, do you really need a pistol? Aim for the eyes...

Reply to
Stuart Wheaton

Stuart Wheaton fired this volley in news:acfc1$4b2a39e9$d06602ac$ snipped-for-privacy@FUSE.NET:

Hell... aim for _anything_ you want to vaporize!

Make it a CO2 laser, and the perp won't see anything but his own smoke.

LLoyd

Reply to
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh

Nah, it'll cut 1" of steel, but the LASER head is .020" above the plate.

David

Reply to
David R.Birch

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:08:29 -0600, the infamous "David R.Birch" scrawled the following:

Ooh, I want one of those for the roof of my house. Bluejays, skunks, raccoons, stray dogs, and other invasive bipedal species would be history!

All I want for Christmas is a Vaporizing Laser for my roof! Hooyah!

-- This episode raises disturbing questions about scientific standards, at least in highly political areas such as global warming. Still, it's remarkable to see how quickly corrective information can now spread. After years of ignored freedom-of-information requests and stonewalling, all it took was disclosure to change the debate. Even the most influential scientists must prove their case in the court of public opinion?a court that, thanks to the Web, is one where eventually all views get a hearing. --Gordon Crovitz, WSJ 12/9/09

Reply to
Larry Jaques

All you have to do is lure them within .020" of the LASER head.

David

Reply to
David R.Birch

Just guessing, but I'd bet that thing will go through soft tissue at quite a greater distance than what it takes to slice steel...

Hmm?

Reply to
cavelamb

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:09:26 -0600, the infamous "David R.Birch" scrawled the following:

Who ever heard of a proximity laser?!?

-- This episode raises disturbing questions about scientific standards, at least in highly political areas such as global warming. Still, it's remarkable to see how quickly corrective information can now spread. After years of ignored freedom-of-information requests and stonewalling, all it took was disclosure to change the debate. Even the most influential scientists must prove their case in the court of public opinion?a court that, thanks to the Web, is one where eventually all views get a hearing. --Gordon Crovitz, WSJ 12/9/09

Reply to
Larry Jaques

cavelamb wrote in news:eYadncr3cLYgr7HWnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

Not certain. After the first bit turns to carbon, it might form an insulating layer. I suspect at those power levels the water vaporizes fast enough to blow the charred bits away and keep the cut clear.

Just speculating...

Doug White

Reply to
Doug White

Not really. The beam is focused for greatest intensity about halfway through the material its cutting, it's not simply a narrow beam of coherent light.

David

Reply to
David R.Birch

Right. Its a question of optics. And losses in the optics. A parallel beam that can cut steel will have a power density that can damage the optics. But by spreading the beam out and bringing it to a focus only where the cutting is to be done, the power density in the lenses is lower.

Its also a safety feature. If the beam spreads out again behind the focus point, it won't drill holes in the floor, walls, or whatever is behind the work.

Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.