• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

US Army M-19 modular binoculars (1 Viewer)

Kevin Purcell

Well-known member
Slightly geeky but this recent comment

Slightly like the Bell and Howell M19, developed so that the objectives and eyepieces and the bodies could be replaced in the field while still maintaining acceptable collimation. Light transmission stated on the specs at 70%!
Regards, John

Ah, the M19

http://fantao.home.att.net/m19.htm

That comment reminded me of this paper I read a while ago (from the UArizona optics papers collection) from 1981

http://www.optics.arizona.edu/optomech/papers/Trsar 1981.pdf

Summary report is here for a quick read:

http://www.optics.arizona.edu/optomech/student reports/synopsis/2006/KazReport1.pdf

Introduction in the Army in 1977 (along with that new fangled Bradley that didn't have a name yet!) is shown here

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/1977/SEP_OCT_1977/SEP_OCT_1977_PAGES_44_46.pdf

Interesting evolution from WW2 and the civilian derived M17 7x50 which stayed in service for a long, long time despite a consideration of a redesign in the late 1950s which lead to the T14 7X50 (which never made it into service but acted as a test bed) then to the M19 7x50 and most recently to the M22.

It's interesting how the design requirement has changed especially as regards reliability and maintenance (either field maintenance, army maintenance or contractor maintenance). The paper outlines the three approaches that came up with the T14: piece part maintenance (the M17 approach); modular maintenance (the T14/M19 approach) and "no field maintenance" (the M22 approach now in service).

There is a potentially interesting history of technology paper/book waiting to be written about this interaction between technology and culture of the DoD.

I also find it interesting that the T14 ended up a 0.3 kg (10.5 ounces!) lighter and rather smaller than either the M19 or M22. But it wasn't rugged enough so revised version the T14E1 was design that worked (a little larger than the T14) and that eventually mutated into the M19.

The prisms were minimized in size and glued in place. That seems very modern (perhaps even better than the M22 or modern commercial porros not 1950s US civilian bins!).

The M19 has some similar interesting features shared with the T14. The asymmetric sized prisms with the "eyepiece side prism being smaller than the objective side prism to reduce weight could be used in modern porros (if anyone was making them!). All the items are made with no adjustments so the objective lens when mounted in the objective tube is aligned. So it can be interchangeably with any other similar part. Same with all the other modules. The bin is almost "edge to edge" sharp because it has a field flattener (in the prism housing) with the reticle marked on the flat EP side of the lens (see Fan Tao's photos).

The lack of baffling in the M19 I guess is another modern trend ;)

An interesting read if you are interested in the design of bins and perhaps in the "resurrection" of a modern porro for birders.
 
Last edited:
Kevin,

Thanks for posting the information on the M19. I have a pair. I know it sounds very interesting on paper, but optically it just isn't a very good binocular. I think the Achilles heel is the super fast f/3 objective. Even though it's a triplet the aberrations are not well controlled. It doesn't produce what any of us civilian optics enthusiasts would consider to be a high quality image.

Still the modular idea does set the mind to work, doesn't it? Imagine a binocular system with interchangeable objectives and eyepieces of different apertures and focal lengths. Just mix and match to make everything from a 6x30 to a 10x50 depending on your requirements of the moment.

Henry
 
Last edited:
Thank you Kevin and Henry for further information and references about the M19 binocular. I have had a copy of the Bell and Howell Imaging Technology info sheets (and the operators' manual) for some years but have yet to see a pair.
Kevin, your reference sheets did not include the Specification sheet, which I found to be quite interesting:
7X50
Fov: 7 1/3*
Light transmission 70%
Focus adjustment +/- 4 diopters
Fully antireflection coated
Size 6"x7.5"x2.5"
Weight 34 oz.
Case 15 oz
Vinyl coated aluminum
Resolution 6 sec.
etc., etc.
Another information sheet I have is on the Tasco #327MR which is stated to have been tested for use by the U.S. Marine Corps, would you have any info on that one, or its civilian version? (I think it is the 327MC)
Thank you, John
 
modular design

The Kern/Leica 8x30 is using a similar manufacturing approach as the M19. Instead of machining subassemblies after fitting their optical components in order to avoid adjustments work as with M19, the K/L individual bino halfs get assembled in a more or less conventional manner, but without possibilities to perform collimation. Completed bino halfs after alignment in a special device get the mating surfaces of their single hinge machined such, that they get sufficienltly collimated just by joining left and right. Replacement of damaged halves accordingy does not need collimation work.
 
I got a M19 where I have to clean the prisms, as they are foggy.

By first inspection, I can remove the oculars and can get to the screws where the prism block is fixed.
But to remove the Prism block for cleaning I have to get access from the front.

Has anyone an Idea how the acess to thr prism from the front is possible?

thanks in advance
Kowaist
 
Unscrew the objective tubes. I don't think you want to remove the prism block. It's supposed to be factory centered so that any eyepiece or objective tube can be substituted without re-collimating. The prism cluster is cemented, so you only need to clean the outside surfaces.
 
Last edited:
Kevin,

Thanks for posting the information on the M19. I have a pair. I know it sounds very interesting on paper, but optically it just isn't a very good binocular. I think the Achilles heel is the super fast f/3 objective. Even though it's a triplet the aberrations are not well controlled. It doesn't produce what any of us civilian optics enthusiasts would consider to be a high quality image.

Still the modular idea does set the mind to work, doesn't it? Imagine a binocular system with interchangeable objectives and eyepieces of different apertures and focal lengths. Just mix and match to make everything from a 6x30 to a 10x50 depending on your requirements of the moment.

Henry

Conceived in 1955 by Farrand Optical, some of the greatest strengths--on paper--of the M19 (originally the T14) turned out to be its greatest weaknesses. "O" rings failed, Norland 61 adhesive was often applied in the wrong quantities, light leaked around prisms and, seeking optical perfection, collimation specs didn't take the observer's spatial accommodation into account, which could have saved millions in production costs.

By 1980, production was up to 2,000 per month. Ten years later the program had been scrapped and the Army's new M22--the Steiner Commander II--had taken its place ... for a short while, before turning to the Fujinon AR (Nautilus). :cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:
Unscrew the objective tubes. I don't think you want to remove the prism block. It's supposed to be factory centered so that any eyepiece or objective tube can be substituted without re-collimating. The prism cluster is cemented, so you only need to clean the outside surfaces.

Hello Henry,

thanks for the response. So the whole Objective unit including the outer tube can be unscrewed where the seam is visible in the plastic covering. Do I have to expect very hard resistance maybe by later glueing or sealing efforts?

I just wanted to be secure before trying to unscrew, as I couldt see if the glass body is two parts (screwed in Objective part like in classic "german=Zeiss" layout or the bino has a classical one-part body like classic B&L type "american style". The other alernative would have been that the objektuve lens block would have been screwed into the front opening inside.

So I surely can try to screw the 1/3 part of the Body off. Might take some force, because there is a sealing, but I hope I can manage is. I just wnated to get sute not to damage the rubber oder the body on a opening trial...

For cleaning the prism block then it is better to take it our to reach all surfaces. When screwed in the flattener/reticle is in the way for cleaning.
I am used to service 100 year old Zeiss glasses, so I can handle this "LEGO"-Bino, hopefully.

It is naturally very rare here in Germany, so I grabbed this M19 when it was on ebay... What is it like in US, has the army sold all of them and are the in the market? How do the americans like this glass, I read not so good things about its optical performance, but for a 7x50 it is really very small and featherlight (same weight as my watersports full plastic floatable Fujinon, my "deck glass" on a SUP...

thanks a lot, today evening I will try to unscrew the lens unit...
 
Last edited:
Conceived in 1955 by Farrand Optical, some of the greatest strengths--on paper--of the M19 (originally the T14) turned out to be its greatest weaknesses. "O" rings failed, Norland 61 adhesive was often applied in the wrong quantities, light leaked around prisms and, seeking optical perfection, collimation specs didn't take the observer's spatial accommodation into account, which could have saved millions in production costs.

By 1980, production was up to 2,000 per month. Ten years later the program had been scrapped and the Army's new M22--the Steiner Commander II--had taken its place ... for a short while, before turning to the Fujinon AR (Nautilus). :cat:

Bill

thanks Bill!

If a glass is replaces by a Steiner (living near Steiner factory I dare to say that) it is not a very good sign...
In germany the Bundeswehr once had Steiners, but the other Hensoldt Fero have far more repuatation for optical performance...

Do you know how many M19 habe been bulit? Can the costs of one bino be estimated for rhe Army and how did the soldiers like this glass in service?

Greetings
Kowaist

Owner of M3, M15A1 and now M19... on hunt for M13 and M17...
 
Last edited:
Still the modular idea does set the mind to work, doesn't it? Imagine a binocular system with interchangeable objectives and eyepieces of different apertures and focal lengths. Just mix and match to make everything from a 6x30 to a 10x50 depending on your requirements of the moment.

Henry

Henry,

I have been thinking of this for a long time, after all this is done with spotting scopes ,but after speaking with some in the optical manufacturing industry, it appears that it would hurt sales, not to Optic enthusiasts like us but to the masses. I still see this down the road though.

A.W.
 
Bill,

Could you set me straight, is the Fujinon (KAMA TECH) M22 the same Fujinon Polaris commercial model without the laser filter and reticle? I have the KAMA TECH M22 7X50, and thinking of removing the laser filter, which takes away quite a bit of brightness along with providing the horrible color rendition.

A.W.

A.W.
 
Hello Henry,

thanks for the response. So the whole Objective unit including the outer tube can be unscrewed where the seam is visible in the plastic covering. Do I have to expect very hard resistance maybe by later glueing or sealing efforts?

I just wanted to be secure before trying to unscrew, as I couldt see if the glass body is two parts (screwed in Objective part like in classic "german=Zeiss" layout or the bino has a classical one-part body like classic B&L type "american style". The other alernative would have been that the objektuve lens block would have been screwed into the front opening inside.

So I surely can try to screw the 1/3 part of the Body off. Might take some force, because there is a sealing, but I hope I can manage is. I just wnated to get sute not to damage the rubber oder the body on a opening trial...

For cleaning the prism block then it is better to take it our to reach all surfaces. When screwed in the flattener/reticle is in the way for cleaning.
I am used to service 100 year old Zeiss glasses, so I can handle this "LEGO"-Bino, hopefully.

It is naturally very rare here in Germany, so I grabbed this M19 when it was on ebay... What is it like in US, has the army sold all of them and are the in the market? How do the americans like this glass, I read not so good things about its optical performance, but for a 7x50 it is really very small and featherlight (same weight as my watersports full plastic floatable Fujinon, my "deck glass" on a SUP...

thanks a lot, today evening I will try to unscrew the lens unit...

Unscrew the whole barrel at the seam as in the photo below. You'll meet with some initial resistance from the compressed O-ring that acts as a seal between the barrel and the body.

Bill can tell you more about the M-19's history. I think they are long gone from the US military and not very desirable on the used market.

Henry
 

Attachments

  • DSC_1112.jpg
    DSC_1112.jpg
    191.3 KB · Views: 163
M22

By 1980, production was up to 2,000 per month. Ten years later the program had been scrapped and the Army's new M22--the Steiner Commander II--had taken its place ... for a short while, before turning to the Fujinon AR (Nautilus).

Bill

Rectified, it is the Nautlius not the Polaris.

A.W.
 
By 1980, production was up to 2,000 per month. Ten years later the program had been scrapped and the Army's new M22--the Steiner Commander II--had taken its place ... for a short while, before turning to the Fujinon AR (Nautilus).

Bill

Rectified, it is the Nautlius not the Polaris.

A.W.

Dries: Nautilus ... but if you had enough gold on your collar, you could weasel a Polaris out of them.

Henry: Could I have that image for future publication?

Kowaist: Today, the majority of Steiners come from China, in the fleet we referred to them as "the disposable binocular," and I have only heared a FEW rave reviews of them by Germans. In the states, though, people could be happy looking through a rusty pipe if it had a German name on the side. I thought the original "Navigator II" was a FINE instrument. Then they SQUATIFIED it like all the others.

Bill
 

Attachments

  • IMGP1595 copy.jpg
    IMGP1595 copy.jpg
    207.7 KB · Views: 123
Last edited:
Hello Henry,

Many thanks! Have just opened it and cleaned the prisms. Opening went well with my new "Super Grip gloves" from our herman home depot equivalent.
Removing are reinserting the prism block is easy and recommended for proper cleaning of all prisms.

Now it really clean again,yes the glass is very serviceable!

In brightness it cannot compete with my Pentax Marine BIF from the 1970s (a modern M15 follower), but is is a lot smaller and lighter. But excessive daytime tests have still to come.

What do you think is the market value in US? Here on ebay Germany or in UK they are very seldom seen...

It is fantastic for a porro collection as it is so unique in design. Really a good toy, but in military service I doubt that it can kept tight... Was is shock proof?

And I am a real design fan of the "American Style Binos", not so boring as the common zeiss Porro style we have all over in Europe...

Kowaist
 
Hello Henry,

Many thanks! Have just opened it and cleaned the prisms. Opening went well with my new "Super Grip gloves" from our herman home depot equivalent.
Removing are reinserting the prism block is easy and recommended for proper cleaning of all prisms.

Now it really clean again,yes the glass is very serviceable!

In brightness it cannot compete with my Pentax Marine BIF from the 1970s (a modern M15 follower), but is is a lot smaller and lighter. But excessive daytime tests have still to come.

What do you think is the market value in US? Here on ebay Germany or in UK they are very seldom seen...

It is fantastic for a porro collection as it is so unique in design. Really a good toy, but in military service I doubt that it can kept tight... Was is shock proof?

And I am a real design fan of the "American Style Binos", not so boring as the common zeiss Porro style we have all over in Europe...

Kowaist

I invented a shockproof binocular, once. Then, I woke up and had to go to work. Other than that, I've never seen one. Some are greatly more rugged than others ... but shockproof ranks right up there with Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. :cat:
 
Hi,

I just wanted to ask "shockproof enough" or as shock resistant as possible, maybe as a M17...

btw, can you give a estimated prduction year for a serial 15xxx

thanks
Kowaist
 
Hi,

I just wanted to ask "shockproof enough" or as shock resistant as possible, maybe as a M17...

btw, can you give a estimated prduction year for a serial 15xxx

thanks
Kowaist

I have no production dates handy for the 15xxx. However, the Army's M17 was virtually the same as the Navy's Mk28. The shock test for that was being dropped from a height of 6 feet into a shallow box of dry sand. Woopy!

If the tech had done his job correctly it would pass, every time. :cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top