Night Vision FLIR Thermosight T60 + Barrett M82A1 Recoil Impulse
- Thread starter sumkrnboy
- Start date
Homie if you have the cash to buy a t60 and put it on a Barrett go for it. If it breaks buy another! Lol I don't know if it would hurt it or not but I wanna see some pics!
My FLIR T-50 has .50 Browning M2 ballistic reticules already built into it for use for mounting on a Browning M2 full auto as it was designed for use on this machine gun, so I don't think it will be a problem.
I have prolly 200 rounds of hunting .308 handloads on my T-60 and maybe 800-900 5.56mm without any problems whatsoever, but I do not own a .50.
IR-V is the man to ask about this though.....
I have prolly 200 rounds of hunting .308 handloads on my T-60 and maybe 800-900 5.56mm without any problems whatsoever, but I do not own a .50.
IR-V is the man to ask about this though.....
Thanks for the referral, SkyPup.
We've tested the FLIR T60 ATWS on both the FN M3 .50 (machinegun) and the Barrett M107 .50 (automatic rifle). It can sustain the recoil forces and acceleration / deceleration from both firearms without damage to the sensor, display, electronics or optics.
The weakest link in the T60 component chain is the display. At around the 20,000 round threshhold, the test units experienced a few dead pixels on the displays but nothing much more serious than that out to 30,000 rounds, which is when the testing ended across all the units.
The recoil velocity is actually more critical than recoil energy when assessing the effects of a particular rifle + cartridge combination on optics. The recoil velocity on the .338 LM from a Sako TRG is around 33% greater than with .50 BMG from the M107, and is much harder on scopes.
The stress on optics is the highest at the start and end of the recoil impulse cycle, during the acceleration (from zero velocity) and deceleration (to zero velocity) of the rifle host, with the latter causing the greatest stress to the optics.
Adding weight to the firearm will decrease the recoil energy and velocity roughly in proportion to the weight increase.
IR-V
Last edited:
Thanks IR-V for the detailed information.
I doubt that I'll be putting those quantities of bullets down-range, but it's good to know that it is durable sight.
Are you guys adding weight to firearms or are you stating that heavier guns in general have less recoil energy and decrease the recoil energy/velocity?
I doubt that I'll be putting those quantities of bullets down-range, but it's good to know that it is durable sight.
Are you guys adding weight to firearms or are you stating that heavier guns in general have less recoil energy and decrease the recoil energy/velocity?
You're welcome, sumkrnboy. The M3 is quite heavy all by itself and even in a portable configuration requires at least two people to move it. The M107s we used for the testing are the standalone rifles with just the thermal imager, day scope, bipod, and suppressor.
The T60 is an extremely overbuilt optic, and very strong. Again, it is the display that is its weakest link, which is the same with all thermal weapon scopes not just the T60. The recoil forces by themselves are not what causes the damage, but those combined with constant or frequent vibration.
IR-V
One of the issues IRV touched on, but many may not entirely understand, is that a .50 BMG RIFLE, has a dual impulse recoil. This effect is caused by the muzzle brake. In our testing back in the early 90's, we found up to a 21 g reversal in the recoil as the cycle was completed. In other words, after the rearword movement of the rifle, it was jerked forward a very short distance by the effect of the muzzle brake. This is why in in early days (late 80's early 90's), so many scopes would not hold up to use on a .50. I cannot tell you how many scopes I saw destroyed by the .50 at matches. At that time, the only scope that was reliable (for the most part), were the OLD Leupold Mark 4 series fixed power scopes that were originally made for the Navy. The one I still have is marked on the bottom of the turret saddle, "Leupold Mark 4 Ultra 20X 1985" They used an etched glass reticle and had a 40mm objective. By todays standard, it it quite dark looking through it! LOL!. It wasn't until Nightforce came out with their Competition series scopes that we had an alternative that didn't come apart. This was in large part because Jeff Huber listened to our needs. He used to come to the matches with a bunch of scopes, and ended up selling many at the matches. He did the same thing for the military after I showed the very first NXS scope to the Navy late 1998 I believe. Piston type air rifles or pellet guns have the same problem, which is why they sell scopes specifically for piston air rifles. The piston slamming home drive the rifle forward. Most scopes were made to resisted the normal recoil to the rear. It was this forward and back that caused the scope components to come loose. As far as most nightvision clip on devices, they are all rated up to .50 BMG. They have more robust intensifier tubes and are mounted in such a way as to reduce the effect of the recoil. I do not think all thermal vision device have quite caught up, but I a may be wrong with military issue items. So in image intensification and thermal devices, they must be constructed so that both the optical components, and imaging tubes must be rated and constructed with these issues in mind when it comes to .50 rifles. The M107 is probably the softest recoiling .50 rifle out there due to is recoil operated semi-auto mechanism. A standard bolt action rifle is significantly tougher on an optic.
Scott
Scott
