TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia recently debated the pros and cons of equipping self-defense guns with laser sights. The general consensus: great for practice, not so great for real-world carry (except for those who do). To launch that discussion, I deployed an image of a Crimson Trace laser on an AR. OK, so, what about a laser from their military division on a M72 LAW (Light Anti-Tank Weapon)? Enemies have been fighting the LAW since the 60’s. Operators [line ‘o’] sight the weapon using a front reticle and rear peep. So why fix it if it ain’t broke? . . . “The SFL unit dramatically improves rapid sight transition, especially in low light conditions, and the improved on-target accuracy equates to a much higher hit ratio,” the presser proclaims. “The partnered SFL-100 laser can be effectively aimed at ranges from 50 to 200 meters and provides 25m increment adjustments. This helps soldiers in the battlefield gain a substantial advantage in eliminating opposing mechanized forces.” [Full press release, courtesy Ammoland, after the jump.] Runs on double-A’s. NFA need not apply, FWIW . . .
Wilsonville, OR – -(Ammoland.com)- CTC Defense, a division of Oregon-based Crimson Trace Corporation, has announced that it has completed shipping of more than 25,000 SFL-100s (Shoulder Fired Lasers) systems in fulfillment of an international military contract.
The SFL-100 is a low-light aiming laser that couples with a unique, quick-detach/secure platform system that works with the battlefield tested M72 LAW (Light Anti-Tank Weapon).
“CTC Defense realizes this large purchase of SFL-100 units is a vote of confidence in our products and the performance these products provide for soldiers on the battlefield,” said Dale Suzuki, CTC Defense Division Director.
“The SFL unit dramatically improves rapid sight transition, especially in low light conditions, and the improved on-target accuracy equates to a much higher hit ratio. We look forward to working with other allies in fulfilling their laser system needs.”
There are several platform options for the SFLS, including: the CTC Defense RELMS (Rocket Expedient Laser Mounting System) with quick attach, or a factory-installed base plate. Application of the RELMS base plate and SFL- 100 can quickly convert standard M72 LAW units already in inventory into upgraded laser equipped armament. The partnered SFL-100 laser can be effectively aimed at ranges from 50 to 200 meters and provides 25m increment adjustments. This helps soldiers in the battlefield gain a substantial advantage in eliminating opposing mechanized forces.
The easy-to-install laser aiming unit (slides into and precisely locks onto a base plate with no required tools or adjustments) also expands the use of the M72 LAW into an effective nighttime weapon. The current standard M72 LAW aiming system relies on daylight to complete the aiming process.
The SFL-100 produces a visible red 635nm laser and is powered by an AA battery. The laser run time is 14 hours (it moves into auto-off mode after 35 seconds of inactivity) and the unit is waterproof to 1 meter. The laser unit is housed in a sturdy advanced polymer shell and weighs less than 4 ounces. It is designed to work with all M72 LAW system variants.
About CTC Defense:
CTC Defense, a tactical electro-optics company, is headquartered in Wilsonville, Oregon. CTC Defense is a division of Crimson Trace Corporation, the acknowledged industry leader for laser sighting systems and lighting accessories for firearms. All products are proudly designed, engineered and manufactured in the USA. More details are at www.ctcdefense.com.
Sooo, let’s give away our position to a mechanized enemy before we take a shot. That’s a great idea… An IR laser for the LAW might have had value and potential, but there’s a reason we don’t use visible light lasers in conventional units.
Except for the widely issued ATPIAL (AN/PEQ-15) that has both IR and visible laser capabilities.
http://www.insighttechnology.com/l3-products/an-peq-15-or-la-5-peq
Thats why theyll be used on the LAW system. The LAW has been replaced in frontline service by the AT4 but due to its smaller size and speed of deployment tge LAW remains in use with special forces units to deal with light armor. The laser sight allows for a quicker and more precise sight picture in low light conditions without using a much more expensive IR laser on what is a disposable rocket tube.
TO: Some [STUPID] Guy
RE: Giving Away the Position?
Yeah. Like every Abrams MBT does when it range-finds on a target.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. But a laser on an individual anti-tank weapon is dumber than dirt. Unless it’s going to have a range-finding computer associated with it to adjust the sight picture of the guy firing the weapon.
The LAW had a system, but I found it to be rather ‘awkward’ to work.
Which is why we were to target FOUR LAWs to kill ONE tank.
Better than giving your position away by using a dragon and then having to wait to visually guide it on target
TO: Eric [the Stupid]
RE: Wait and See
I commanded a mech infantry combat support company in the early 80s.
We had to ‘wait and see’ with the MILES equipment.
I had a TOW section take on an entire tank company, using MILES.
We killed every tank over a battle field of five miles.
We only lost one assistant gunner in that fight.
The lasing is not as important as good battlefield tactics and security.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out….most of these characters couldn’t find their fourth-point-of-contact with BOTH HANDS!]
@ chuckie, why the name calling? I’ll let you in on a little secret. I was in mechanized infantry NOT support, like you claim. I was in many force on force training battles with the tankers. Do you actually know what a dragon is ? Doesn’t seem so. Infantry shooting any form of tow would be vulnerable until the missle hits, especially if more than one tango is around.
By the way, chuckles, the tow stands for tube fired, optically tracked, wire guided missile.
It really depends how columnated the beam is. A laser is not a lightbulb, a well designed emitter will have very little side scatter and be almost impossible to quickly trace back to the source. I think the idea is to take aim, pulse the laser to confirm point of impact and then let fly. The laser pulse would precede the rocket by a half dozen seconds or so. Once that this lets loose, revealing your position will hardly be the fault of the laser.
Unless it’s dusty, misty, rainy or foggy. But your point is still good. Sidescatter needs some outside assistance to become highly visible
Sharks with freakin’ “laser” beams on their heads? Oh, LAWs with . . . ok that makes a little more sense, I think.
This seems like a solution in search of a problem. The point of the LAW is it’s light, simple, rugged, cheap and disposable. Anything that makes it more expensive, complicated, sensitive, expensive and requires parts of it to be retained after firing would seem to degrade the weapon and ignore it’s ubiquitous utility.
Given that it’s a close range tool for engaging vehicles and fixed emplacements laser sights just for optical aiming seems a bit silly. If iron sights are fine for hitting a human at 300m and less, how exactly does one require a laser to hit a truck or armored car?
I’m a bit beyond my expertise on this one but this sounds suspiciously like the sort of junk that gets bought, issued and then sits in a warehouse or supply depot or even just in someone’s ruck destine to never be used.
+1
Coming soon to a SWAT team near you
TO: All
RE: CTC Lasers for LAWs
How many of US have such weapons in our gun cabinets, anyway?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Be Prepared…..but why have a weapon not allowed for civilians, when a thermite grenade can accomplish the same effect?]
Somewhere down the line one of these de-activated tubes with a dead laser unit attached to it will turn up at a gun buyback program and we’ll have to sit thru kapo bloomberg wailing about precision guided munitions flooding the streets of America. It can be disturbing being able to see into the future.
I see the 2014 plasma rifles in a 40 watt range are in early this year….
The hilarious part is tha 40 Watts is not all that much. It’s classic example of critical research failure. A 40 kilowatt range would be slightly more impressive. Although you’d need 40 megawatts before you got anywhere near death ray territory.
TO: Pwrserge
RE: The Proverbial Power-Line ‘Death Ray’
I’m suddenly reminded of a Nam-Era cartoon where you see an M60 wired to some high-power lines and the tank crew member is outside the vehicle exclaming to the TC….
Congratulations, LT. You’ve create the Death Ray!
The LT must have been an MIT or Cal Tech grad.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I can kill a tank with a simple hand grenade…..
Dear Ask Leghorn:
I just bought a case of AT4s from Cheaper Than Dirt and noticed that as my eyes age, I’m becoming less accurate with my rocket fire. Should I equip all my light anti-tank weapons with lasers or should I just get contact lenses?
Thank you in advance for your answer.
Signed,
Astigmatic in Attleboro
I’d love to see a red laser that is visible out to 200 yards at high noon. None of the lasers i’ve used (both red and green) are much good past 15 yards in bright sunlight. I’m wondering if that is because more powerful beams are not eye safe and thus are not sold to non mil/le users.
Most of the lasers you would see mounted on weapons are class I or class II (eye safe). I would hazard it’s partially a liability and partially a utility issue. (How often do you need a weapon mounted laser visible at 200 yards?) To get a couple hundred yards of range, you would need at least a class 3a laser or more probably a class 3b. While a lot of laser pointers are on the low end of the class 3 range, class 3 lasers are most definitely not eye safe. If I was a manufacturer, I would be concerned about liability suits from a product designed to be pointed at people.
Easier to use? This is not GI Joe, this is an anti-tank rocket with a sight on it already. Easier is not always better and lasers are not the best sighting mechanisms for the warfighter engaging a freaking tank.
To Chuck who compared a tank giving away its position to the Soldier giving away his position with this; are you seriously making a comparison between the two? If a tank gives away its position with the laser, everyone already knew that the tank was there to begin with.
To Dave, the AN/PEQ-15 is designed to be an accessory to the weapon, not a primary sighting system. You would not use it if you were in open combat with a mixture of infantry and armor, just as you would not use the LAW or AT-4 in CQB (Close Quarters Battle, for the uninitiated)!
At least they aren’t putting ACOG’s on the things. Lasers these days are pretty cheap, especially by bloated federal budget standards.
Look closer, I do believe that thing a pretty freaking redundant pic rail on top, a short one. I guess to hold the TP dispenser that’ll be needed should you find yourself in a position to have to use this thing…
TO: The Truth About Guns — BlogMiester
RE: i Pads, Anyone?
Your system has serious ‘issues’ regarding reading/commenting using mobile, e.g., iPad, devices.
You should do more and more thorough beta-testing before implementing significant changes.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Good user interface is the hobgoblin of retaining ‘visitors’.]
I can see using a laser on a defense pistol if my eyesight were to start deteriorating to the point of being unable to effectively use my sights.
Comments are closed.