SKU: 90209287999
quad tube night vision goggles

quad tube night vision goggles QTNVG Quad Tube Night Vision Device

Sale price$21.67 Regular price$24.08
Save 10%

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 11 - Jul 16

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

quad tube night vision goggles QTNVG Quad Tube Night Vision Device120 Field of View 25hrs (Extendable 125hrs) Adjustable Diopter IP67 Rated Available to US Customers Only: All ITAR Regulations Apply KommandoStore is proud to introduce the Quad Tube Night Vision Goggle (QTNVG). With an unmatched 120 field of view, the QTNVG delivers superb performance for the most demanding nighttime tasks. Capable panoramic night vision has never been more within reach. The Housing: The night vision market has a FOV problem.

120° Field of View  25hrs (Extendable 125hrs)  Adjustable Diopter  IP67 Rated

 

Available to US Customers Only: All ITAR Regulations Apply

KommandoStore is proud to introduce the Quad Tube Night Vision Goggle (QTNVG). With an unmatched 120° field of view, the QTNVG delivers superb performance for the most demanding nighttime tasks. Capable panoramic night vision has never been more within reach.

The Housing:

The night vision market has a FOV problem. Virtually all commercial sales are limited to a small number of dual tube units with the same 40-51 degrees of vision. While quad tube units are nothing new, manufacturers have long restricted sales of these products to military and elite law enforcement. Although the technology is not illegal, sales restrictions and absurdly high prices have effectively barred many law-abiding Americans from ownership. When used panoramic devices make their way onto the market, hostile warranty and repair practices ensure an unpleasant experience. It is our view that civilians and regular law enforcement officers have a legitimate right to this technologythis is the primary reason behind our pursuit of the QTNVG.

So why do I want more FOV? Why would I select the QTNVG over a traditional dual tube unit?

Short answer: To increase instantaneous availability of visual data.

Vision System  Field of View (Degrees)
PVS-14 40
Dual Tube Binocular 40-51
QTNVG 120
Human Eye 135

Long Answer:

When using a monocular or dual tube solution, it is essential that the operator overcome the field of view (FOV) limitations by constantly scanning their environment. In practice this is tedious and prone to error; even with modern dual tube NODs 'tunnel vision' is very real and very deadly threat. While scanning does work, it places a high cognitive burden on the operator leading to fatigue and mistakes.

Even with perfect scanning discipline, certain situations are inherently dangerous with the limited FOV imposed by conventional NODs. Perhaps the most notable is clearing rooms. When you're kicking down doors the perceptual delay imposed by scanning is significant—greatly reducing your window to safely respond to threats.

What if I’m not a high-speed operator taking down structures rapidly with my team of cool guys?

But you probably have a car, quad, hoverboard, hang glider, or some other way to get around the world, right? While driving is completely possible with monocular or a binocular unit, only a quad tube unit will give you the full picture. Go sit in your preferred means of conveyance and hold a toilet paper tube about a half inch away from your eye. Now, try to look at the rear-view mirror, side-view mirror, or any other control that is outside the immediate 40-degree field of view on the ToiletPaper-14. When you are walking around on your two legs, the option to stop and scan your FOV is usually there. However, if you are flying down dirt roads at 40mph can you really afford to be swinging your head around?

Okay, I get it, I can drive really fast and take down structures like a cool guy. What else can I do?

Aside from the driving and CQB benefits, quad tube units provide a couple other pros over monos and even some dual offerings. Among the most important is a dramatic improvement in passive aiming. Over the last decade, adoption of night vision has rapidly accelerated in almost every segment of society. This proliferation of low cost, high reliability NODs means that if you're using an aiming laser or IR illuminator, odds are someone else can see you. In the '90s it may have been a different story, but it's 2020 now and Joe down the street with his Sightmark Wraith HD digital rifle scope  can kill you just as dead as anything.

Passive aiming (being able to aim without giving off an active IR signature) becomes extremely easy with quads. While possible on monos and passable on duals, quads make it dead easy to naturally aim down red dot or holographic optics. Throwing an Aimpoint T2 on a Unity Tactical FAST Micro Mount allows you to have a fantastic day/night zero with very little in the way of ergonomic shifts as the sun goes down.

Additionally, we have found that some people suffer from motion sickness under conventional FOV NODs. In our experience this usually happens when tracking moving objects—specifically when the user's eyes exceed the available field of view offered by the device. When this happens, the disconnect between what the brain is expecting (continuity of vision) and what it gets (complete darkness) leads to nausea. With the QTNVG, this is effect is greatly reduced as the 120° panoramic view closely matches the 130° God gave you.

But I’ve heard that most quad units sacrifice features over duals!

This is true on some legacy units, however this is not the case for QTNVGs. With QTNVGs, you get every feature you would expect on a proper dual tube night vision unit. The QTNVG has full adjustment to suit the end user, including pupillary distance (PD) and diopter adjustment ensuring perfect usability with the widest possible range of users. Auxiliary features include built in IR illuminators which assist in admin tasks such as reading maps, operating doors, identifying ammo cans, or selecting the correct flavor of Fanta (orange) from the cooler.

The QTNVG also makes use of standard MX10160 style image intensification tubes, enabling easy upgrades and interoperability. Many pano users also choose to swap tubes around as they age and wear with use, balancing blems to the outer edges of their vision.

Four tubes? Doesn’t that mean one quarter the battery life?

Not a problem! The QTNVG has an onboard CR123A battery providing up to 25 hours of run time. If this isn't enough for you needs, it also supports an optional helmet mounted battery pack to further increase battery life in excess of 100 hours. This modularity allows you to decide how you want to run the unit based on the situation: as light as possible or maximum on time.

What about X, Y, or Z units?

The sad reality of the quad tube night vision market is that you don't have many choices. And when you scope those choices down to units you can actually buy without violating manufacturer restrictions, you options all but evaporate. Let’s take a look how the QTNVG stacks up against some contemporary options:

Unit Weight Available Tube Type Diopter Adjustment FOV Cost
QTNVG 30 oz Yes

MX10160

Standard

Onboard 120°

$13,500+

ANVIS-10* 28.8 oz

Out of

Production

Proprietary

(Rare)

External

Lenses

97°

Second hand only

$15,000+

GPNVG-18 28.8 oz MIL/LE Only MX10160 Standard

External

Lenses

97°

$38,000+

*No warranty support, spare parts, or repairs available to civilians.


Tube Specifications:

All phosphor image intensifier tubes are made in large, identically formed batches. This manufacturing process has an inherent level of variability, just like the processes used to create modern CPUs. Obviously Elbit and L3 do their best to minimize intra-batch differences, but it is a fact of life in night vision.

Because of this variability, each batch of tubes shakes out into several distinct grades. At Elbit they sort into three categories. In descending order these are SLGDT, SLG, and XLS. In layman's terms these grades roughly correspond to Aviation/Magnified use, Ground Use/1x Use (High Grade), and Ground Use/1x Use (Mid Grade). Tubes that do not meet minimum XLS standards are destroyed.

Grading is accomplished with a minimum standard model. Each grade of tube has minimum values for photocathode response, figure of merit, gain, halo, resolution, signal to noise ratio, and blemishes. In other words, a tube could be Aviation grade in all respects but have a 0.003" blem in zone one---making it land in XLS rather than SLGDT.

To prevent cherry picking Elbit does not release full spec sheets for each tube from the factory. Instead they just guarantee the minimum values for each grade.

In practice this means that:
  • SLGDT tubes meet military aviation standards and are suitable for magnified use. In these applications even pinprick peripheral blemishes can completely disqualify an intensifier tube. Because of this, SLGDT tubes are among the most expensive on the market. 
  • SLG tubes meet military specifications for use in ground based systems. Particularly those where users are not highly magnifying the image (i.e. head mounted NODs). It's important to note that these are not a "compromise" over aviation grade, SLG tubes are incredibly high quality---especially so in the latest 2020 manufacturing batches

So what about XLS?

XLS tubes are physically identical to the SLGDT and SLG tubes above, however the XLS rating is a commercial specification. This makes XLS tubes an incredibly attractive value proposition for the average night vision user.

In plain English: XLS is the grade that Elbit uses to classify tubes that do not meet the milspec. Does that make them bad tubes? Not necessarily. The vast majority of XLS tubes are SLG or SLGDT spec with minor blems.

  • Single small needle sized pin prick (0.003-0.006”) in zone 1? Sorry pal that’s not milspec!
  • More than two of those pin pricks in zone 3? No soup for you!
  • etc.

Now obviously nobody wants a blem in their unit, but how much usability does a small pinprick take away? The answer is very little when used as intended. Like death and taxes blems are a fact of life in night vision; even the best intensifiers will form small blemishes and imperfections with regular use. It's an unavoidable side effect of the technology.

If you're the type of person that likes to sit inside and stare at solid white walls, you will absolutely pick up a blem of any size. In more realistic field conditions blems become extremely hard to spot against dark dynamic backgrounds.

Because of this, we believe that XLS tubes offer an unmatched value to the customer. With an XLS tube you can enjoy night vision which is every bit as functional as higher-grades whilst saving hundreds of dollars. This means more money for practice and training under night vision---and believe me practice is essential.

Here are the zones commonly referred to in night vision documentation:

If you have any further questions regarding XLS vs SLG, please email us or make use of the live chat and one of our representatives will chime in with photos, additional information, and personal anecdotes.

Your included spec sheets will detail any blemishes that are on the individual unit and the full tube specifications.

Additional custom tube configurations are available per customer request. Please email us at [email protected] to discuss configurations.

Warranty and Return Policy:

The QTNVG carries a one-year manufacturer limited warranty on the housing and internal optics. This warranty covers failures due to manufacturing defects, and premature failure during normal use. Outside of this warranty period, repairs and replacements will be assessed on a case by case basis. The unit boasts a modular construction which makes most repairs fairly easy.

Intensifier tubes are covered by Elbit's 2 year limited warranty against manufacturing defects and premature failure. In practice this warranty is 1 year and 8-11 months as Elbit starts the warranty clock as soon as the intensifier tubes are shipped from their facility. 

The unit as a whole is covered by KommandoStore's standard 30 day return policy, plus free return shipping. We will also facilitate servicing and support of your night vision, including warranty repairs if needed.

 

Specifications:

Housing:

Weight 30oz
Battery Type C123A
Battery Life User configurable 25-125 hrs
Material Glass filled nylon construction
Glass Type Custom quad overlap glass
Battery Connector QTNVG Specific
Gain Control Auto
Auto Gated Yes
Assembly
Professionally tested and assembled
Collimated and nitrogen purged
Dust Resistance IP6 - Dust Tight

No ingress of dust; complete protection against contact (dust-tight). A vacuum must be applied. Test duration of up to 8 hours based on airflow.
Water Resistance IP7 - Immersion, up to 1 meter (3 ft 3 in) depth

Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 meter (3 ft 3 in) of submersion for 30mins).
Warranty 1 year limited on housing, 2 year limited on intensifier tubes

 

Note: FOM = SNR*Resolution

Elbit SLG White Phosphor Tube (Thin Film Auto Gated) Minimum Specifications

Parameter
Min Max
Photocathode Response 1800

EBI N/A 2.5

Gain 2x10^-6 fc 40,000 80,000

Halo (mm) N/A 1.25

Resolution (lp/mm) 64

Signal to Noise (SNR) 24 N/A

Blem Size (in) Zone 1 (max)
Zone 2 (max)
Zone 3 (max)
>.015 0 0 0
>.012-.015 0 0 0
>.009-.012 0 0 1
>.006-.009 0 1 2
.003-.006 0 2 3


Elbit XLS White Phosphor Tube (Thin Film Auto Gated) Minimum Specifications

Parameter Min Max
Photocathode Response 1350 N/A
EBI N/A 2.5
Gain 2x10^-6 fc 40,000 80,000
Halo (mm) N/A 1.25
Resolution (lp/mm) 64 N/A
Signal to Noise (SNR) 21 N/A
Blem size (in) Zone 1 (max) Zone 2 (max) Zone 3 (max)
>.015 0 0 0
>.012-.015 0 0 0
>.009-.012 0 1 1
>.006-.009 0 1 2
.003-.006 1 2 3

 

Elbit XLS Green Phosphor Tube (Thin Film Auto Gated) Minimum Specifications

Parameter Min Max
Photocathode Response 1350 N/A
EBI N/A 2.5
Gain 2x10^-6 fc 40,000 80,000
Halo (mm) N/A 1.25
Resolution (lp/mm) 64 N/A
Signal to Noise (SNR) 21 N/A
Blem size (in) Zone 1 (max) Zone 2 (max) Zone 3 (max)
>.015 0 0 0
>.012-.015 0 0 0
>.009-.012 0 1 1
>.006-.009 0 1 2
.003-.006 1 2 3
Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 90209287999

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell quad tube night vision goggles

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.4 ★★★★★
Based on 2007 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
L
Verified Purchase
life is good
Carnegie, US
★★★★★ 5
Enlightening!
Format: Paperback
A history of Monroe's discoveries and seminars I took his seminars in the 1993-4 periods Excellent beyond my expectations
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on April 3, 2025
G
Verified Purchase
GiveHerAGoodMunchin
Natrona Heights, US
★★★★★ 5
Excellent trilogy. This is book 2
Format: Paperback
Bob Monroe is an OG OBE G. Love this trilogy. If you can read, read this
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on August 25, 2025
J
Verified Purchase
Joe Neal
Battle Creek, US
★★★★★ 5
Great (excellent) details for the date written
Format: Paperback
NOTE: I toned this version down in 2021 – I was in a bad place when I wrote the original and there were some hostile and entirely inaccurate personal remarks in it. A few tables/charts with a wealth of information have tiny text but most of this was easy enough to read. The photos are poorly produced (at least in the paperback version I reviewed), which is sad given they would be so handy otherwise. This is a classic post-war treatise on the weapons used for ground warfare during World War II by the U.S. Army and as such the Marines. It was first published around 1947 when the war was fresh and doubtlessly numerous technical details were still classified. It was written by a man intimately involved in many design projects. The coverage pretty much explains the breadth. Examples of use are included for some weapons and detailed tables of data for many. He explains references to the "long primer" for the 76-mm gun and the 81-mm mortar T1 extension tube. I am happy to have bought it for that and numerous other details. One thing I missed when I first wrote the original rambling, a bit over the top review back in September 2015 was that the 57mm M1 antitank gun is not mentioned even though it was a key component of Infantry weaponry in 1944-45, sometimes maligned but often quite effective when carefully used as noted in many, many detailed accounts. Perhaps it was skipped because it was a revision of the British 6 pounder and not designed by Barnes men? Yet, it is an example of the issues caused by the pre war budget minders forcing the Army into desperate choices as explained later – and the using arms who decided to adopt it almost at the last minute, late in 1943. Until a weapon is adopted by the Army ammunition cannot be developed – it costs too much money and time to do so. Most of the book is positive and ignores failures, posed from the viewpoint of a proud designer not an actual user. Yet those failures illustrate the issues Ordnance had to deal with during the war. The U.S. invented the bazooka as the 2.36-inch model in 1942 yet the Germans fielded the more powerful 8.8-cm (88mm) model in 1944; and the U.S. did not get the 3.5-inch (90mm) into production-ready state until the war was ended. This was caused by offloading development onto people who went out for a “super rocket launcher” that had no place in the war. All too often, some excited designers did indeed get ahead of themselves when it came to what worked but was a bit too much (and ultimately impractical for the Army at the time). The inability to develop hollow-charge (HEAT) ammo for cannon and howitzers to reach its minimum potential (twice the caliber in penetration or better) was common for all countries including the U.S. The 105mm howitzer round was pretty good and while disparaged by all and sundry even the 75mm howitzer’s shell could (and did) take out medium armor. Barnes refers to the M3 and M5 light tank as "excellent" when the tanker's epithet would have been "tin plated coffin with a pea-shooter". Here we have an issue with comparing numbers such as armor thickness and penetration power of guns to facts; it is common to think they were butchered such as in Africa when in fact they fought well enough, flaws and all. But they were not the weapons the tankers wanted (nor deserved), and thus tanker’s complaints were valid. And, yes, they were not seen as a prime resource for fighting German tanks and hence reverted to recon and infantry support roles. Where they continued to meet and destroy German armor (but also be destroyed). Any German field commander would have loved to have a battalion of M5s on hand chasing down and chewing up U.S. troops; the contribution of the men in the light tanks in Europe in 1944 and 1945 is all too often belittled by the “number nerds” who toss the light tanks off as useless. They were anything but useless. Why were the M10, M18, and M36 designed as “Gun Motor Carriages” and not tanks? Because they were developed for the tank destroyer forces and the very bigoted officers who held the most sway on development wanted them to be nothing but “motorized antitank guns”. If they had been designed as tanks that would have invalidated Tank Destroyer Doctrine immediately. And yet, in the end, the men doing the fighting needed and wanted tanks, so they used them as tanks as much as they could, despite the open roof and lack of internal machine guns. It is claimed the gun motor carriages were cheaper than tanks (a specious argument given price varied by manufacturer and ultimately depended more on quantities produced not some arbitrary raw number) but to produce the gun motor carriages for a specialist role that was neither tank nor artillery (albeit they were used for both) was a costly thing to do. The failure to develop a better light tank in time is not mentioned even though the T7 light tank with a 57-mm gun was ready in mid-1942 and could have been in the field around 1943 (the Armored Forces botched that one). The M24 was a nice tank but too late simply because development came too late because development had been stunted badly by congress and it’s miserly pre-1941 budget. There are errors: The design of the M24 began in 1943, not 1945. The 76-mm gun could hardly penetrate the "...heaviest German tank armor." But it could penetrate a lot of armor and the myth that all German tanks were Tigers and Panthers is one of those fantasies of the war pursued by people who are glorifying the war not understanding it (most German armor was medium or lighter), let alone the myth that they were always met head-on is ridiculous. The 90-mm gun was not optimized for anti-tank use and hence had the same issues with dealing with the frontal armor of the Panther (though it could handle the Tiger) and yet was better at that than many other guns. The tendency to adapt anti-aircraft guns for anti-tank guns was common and is where Germany got its 88s and the 128mm. The U.S. found it did not need a lot of 90mms (the homeland was not threatened and what it produced was enough for its needs); there was never the demand for a higher altitude version and hence nothing like the 8.8cm FLAK 41 was developed which led to the 8.8cm Kwk43 and Pak43s; yet Ordnance built their own versions of hot 90mm for tank use. I missed the boat in my original review failing to detail how the Army’s main issue was the budget provided by Congress and politicians from 1920 through 1940. They starved the Army; the U.S. was peaceful and they had no interest in making it a military country and as such kept the Army small (and starved the air forces and Navy as well but not as badly). This crippled development; while the Soviets started building a modern Army in 1930 complete with investment in tank forces and tank arsenals; the Germans in 1934 or so; and British in 1934 or so; the U.S. politicians did not begin serious spending on the Army until 1941. Before then, the budget was all about “beans, bullets, and bayonets” and of course bodes to wield them. The Army had to struggle with what it had and put to field what was practical not what was best. Thus, for example, the recoilless rifles (used by the Germans in 1940) did not arrive in U.S. use until 1945. And yet a U.S. officer bult the first recoilless rifle to be used way back around 1916. Indeed, a brief little discussion on how the U.S. produced what it did based on budget would have opened many eyes. The Soviets produced so many thousand T34s for example, more than the U.S. – and in the U.S. the budget people were always saying, “You don’t need any more, stop building them!” As mentioned, the number of 90mm AA guns the U.S. produced was not based on manufacturing capacity but because they didn’t need more. Thus - there is a lot of information and many details many people will never have heard before. There are also many missing details concerning the Ordnance Department struggles to get things done in a very brief time frame thanks to how Congress had refused to let them do anything earlier. Dig into that deeper and you might find it nauseating the way people played games that hindered the U.S. Army in its job of helping beat the Germans. And sometimes couldn't put 2 and 2 together to get the right answer. But, they were human after all, and people do make mistakes. In my original review I argued that “If you want a politics free book you will not get it in this once, not unless you shut your eyes and remain ignorant . . .” but that is wrong. If this was a political book, Barnes might have ripped the budget mongers of the 1920s and 1930s a new sphincter for leaving the Army (and U.S. military as a whole) in such a bad situation as they did when war broke out. But, Barnes had more class than I do.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on September 19, 2015
P
Verified Purchase
Petey K
West Palm Beach, US
★★★★★ 5
Good content, very small print and photos
Format: Paperback
Get a magnifying glass… the print is tiny. They must have made this book to be a large hard cover because both the print and the photos are so small in paperback. Content looks decent. It’s a gift for my grandson who will probably spend more time with the photos than the reading anyway and his eyesight is better than mine. :D
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on December 16, 2025
M
Verified Purchase
Museum Man
Houston, US
★★★★★ 4
Printing not up to standards.
Format: Paperback
Printing and pics not up to par.I gifted this book to a coworker and he was not as picky as I.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 8, 2020

recommand products