Thermal Review

[geo4061]

Let's talk thermal comparison. There are several of us that are in the market for thermals geo, Tx, Mario, WR, and others. I know this market is changing quickly. I have people tell me " Do not buy now, there are better units coming at much better prices." We are renting Pulsar XD50, Reap-IR, and monocular Pulsar HD385. Review coming up. Those of you (DNSpy, Zen, Prone Outfitter, UGA, and others) that have had or tried different units please jump in. Please include best picture, best long range identification, and ease of use. Thanks.

 

[scrmblr1982cj8]

I've got a IR Hunter MK III 60mm thermal scope. It is pricey, but I cannot begin to describe the crystal clear image when looking through the unit. I would rank it highest in clarity and distance of detection. I've also got an Armasight Zeus Pro 640. It is also pricey, but I find it easier to use than the IR Hunter. I've got an ATN Thor and would rank it a distant third.

I've also got an ATN Tico thermal clip on. It is very hand to have to be able to switch amongst several rifles. I had to send it in for a software update, but other than that, it's performance has been impressive. Using it on my R700 in .308 with a NF 5.5-22x56 scope, I can watch squirrels play around at 400 yards.

 

[geo4061]

Great review. Thanks. Please add one more thing. If you were going to buy and could only have one what would you recommend? Hopefully others will jump in.

 

[snox801]

I have been shopping for a while now but can decide. Good to hear the cool on works cause that is the way I was leaning so it could work for many of my rifles. My sister inlaw works for the leading producer of the military stuff you think I would have the hook up. She is the personal assistant for the owner and has been with him since they opened up shop.
I'll be watching this post very close.

 

[WildRose]

Same here and the longer I look the more bleary eyed I get trying to figure it all out.

The last time I made use of any sort of Highspeed night imaging geer we were in Somalia. I'm leaning towards one of the IR G2 models with 3-4x magnification Monoculrs for the spottning and stalking and then when everything gets set up flip on the lights and let'm have it. It's not like they don't tend to freeze for a few seconds before bolting once you hit them with a light as long as that light isn't attached to a truck.

Also thinking of setting up couple of good le fashion pig feeders with the metal flapper doors so that it's like ringing the Liberty bell long and loud everytime a her or old loaner shows up to eat.

Numbers have slowly but steadily been on the increase the last three years and at least in my part of the county they are definitely back. Going back to the summer, I killed to pretty big lad boars between 350-400 and an entire herd of 3 young boars running with 9 gilts.

Fast forward to November I managed to take four out of the 7 adults running with what was the "big herd" and they were down to three adults and about thirty piglets running with them when last I got a good chance to give them a good friend and very successful hog hunter told me years ago that with pigs there's no point in trying to pattern them because even the least little pressure can shift their daily grazing area by several miles, they also tend to just start walking whatever dirction the her boar's nose is pointing when he wakes up and starts moving.

I'm starting to think that for as little of it as I'm planning to do I'd just be best off with some sort of 3-5x magnafier monocular to spot and stalk with and adequate, hopefully green laser hunting lights on my rifle and that of anyone else who is along for the ride.

I happened by the taxidermy shop today and they told me the big guy's head is nearly done and I'm really looking forward to seeing him all cleaned up and ready to pose.

 

[geo4061]

Last time out we rented Reap-IR scope and the Pulsar 385 monocular. This combo worked great. The Reap had outstanding pictures while the monocular was not as good. Sorry I do not have anything to compare since this was our first thermal hunt. We also tried shoot first with the thermal suppressed rifle then hit the lights. This did not work for the Wicked light mounted rifle. Smoke from the first shot clouded the scope. Plus finding and picking out a running hog with a small beam of light was at best difficult. They scatter like quail. All in different directions. No easy task.

 

[scrmblr1982cj8]

Based on my experiences with the Armasight and the IR to this point, I'd have to go with the Armasight.

I've got the Armasight on a Ruger piston driven 7.62 AR. I've got the IR on a 6.8 Grendel.

The only reason I say that I'd go with the Armasight is that I've got more experience with the Armasight. I try to be extremely gentle on my gear (doesn't always work out) and had bumped the Armasight a few times and have not noticed any issues. I have not done that with the IR yet so I cannot comment on the durability of the IR. If you are getting just one, I'd think you would want the most durable unit.

The image on the IR, IMO, is better than the Armasight. The Armasight unit is pretty darn big, and can make the rifle a little more unwieldy than the IR.

Give me some more time to play around with the IR and I my answer could change.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I've got a IR Hunter MK III 60mm thermal scope. It is pricey, but I cannot begin to describe the crystal clear image when looking through the unit. I would rank it highest in clarity and distance of detection. I've also got an Armasight Zeus Pro 640. It is also pricey, but I find it easier to use than the IR Hunter. I've got an ATN Thor and would rank it a distant third.

Well, here is an example of the clarity of the MKIII

[ame]https://youtu.be/ilZVfot79f4[/ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilZVfot79f4&t=3s

All the companies have scopes with some good or excellent features and EVERY SINGLE MODEL HAS SOME BONEHEADED FEATURES. I think the most difficult to set up initially is the Pulsar Apex (haven't seen the Trail, yet) as it has a lot of neat features you can customize. However, once setup, it is one of the easiest to run in the field for features that you may need quickly like NUCing and ZOOM. You can do things like brighten the reticle, which is cool, but you have to navigate a complicated menu system to do so. Here, 'complicated' is relative. Until the "Trail" comes out, I think the Apex is the best value for $ going today. These are only 384 resolution scopes, but for hogs and coyotes, folks have been having a lot of success with them. The new Trail scope will be a 640 resolution scope and will have onboard recording. The Trail may not be the top scope of 2017, but it may be the best value general utility thermal hunting scope of 2017 if it works as designed.

I think Armasights make some good, general purpose scopes. They felt the need to follow ATN and include a bunch of needless color palates that are virtually never used except as a novelty. Under conditions of humidity and such, the scope may need to have adjustments made to have a decent image. New users tend to get lost with the buttons, but they are quickly learned. The new firmware takes some getting used to learning such that the user can better run the scope for a better image.

IR Defense makes some of the easiest scopes to use that usually require the least amount of upkeep in the field such as with NUCing and with adjusting the image. The menu system is super easy to learn to use, but can be a nightmare to switch between control screens to access features (NUC is on one and Zoom is on another) under pressure. NUCing is fully manual meaning the user much cover the lens AND initiate the process. On the good side, it seems to need it less often than the Armasights or Pulsars.

When is comes to image quality between Armasight and IR Defense scopes, the IR Hunter MKIII 60mm currently has the best image going, but also has 4.5x magnification. Comparing the MKII 2.5x to the Armasight Zeus (not Pro) 3x, what I find is that the IR Hunter tends to have a better overall image, but less detail on the thermal target than with the Armasight. The Armasight will have the target pop out more visually, but you may lose track of foliage and stuff in the background. This leads folks to like the IR Hunter images better. Both images have advantages and shortcomings. It just sort of depends on what you want.

And that is what a lot of this comes down to - user preference and of course, user needs. None of the scopes are perfect, regardless of what you pay, LOL.

 

[jett]

Double Naught,

What would you consider the maximum range of the above scopes to accurately identify and kill a coyote if used on our traditional long range rifles?

Do any of these scopes have the ability to range like a range finder or can a range finder be used in conjunction with the thermal scope?

Is a shooter able to easily dial for elevation and windage if necessary for an extended shot?

Thank you for your help here.

 

[geo4061]

Great questions. Plus can you use any of these like a monocular and then mount it on the rifle for the shot? Good or bad idea? Loss of point of impact? Ease of mounting in the dark?

 

[scrmblr1982cj8]

Great questions. Plus can you use any of these like a monocular and then mount it on the rifle for the shot? Good or bad idea? Loss of point of impact? Ease of mounting in the dark?

IMO, a lot of your higher end units are too big to take off and use as a monocular. I've attached photos of my Armasight Zeus on my Ruger 7.62. I'm not going to take that thing off unless I need to. If money is not an issue, get a dedicated thermal monocular that you can use for finding hogs.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I have seen where folks are hitting coyotes with Pulsar Apex XD50a at 200 yards. It is a bit of an iffy process in the sense that you can't tell if it is a coyote or a fox or what, but you can tell the movement is canid. A guy up in Colorado that I am in touch with is hitting coyotes at 350 yards with the IR Hunter MKII 2.5x. As you saw above, I could have taken the coyote with the MKIII 4.5x at 325 yards (and certainly much farther) if I had a clue where my bullet was impacting at that distance. The video showed deer at 800 and I bet I could ID a coyote at that distance. IIRC correctly, my longest coyote kill with an Armasight Zeus 3 was 200 yards, but it could have been farther (capability-wise)...
[ame]https://youtu.be/_pororI4gWA[/ame]

I have seen/identified coyotes at over 400 yards with the Zeus 3, but I don't shoot that far.

One of the problems with assessing "maximum range" is that ambient conditions come into play and can really impact distance. Another problem is that most shooters either do not state the distances of their kills or state them but you don't know how accurate the assessment really is. Some folks are prone to improper estimation. What I am telling you here are maximum distances that I know of personally or believe the user to be credible in his assessment. That does not mean these are the maximum distances for the scope, although it probably is close on the Pulsar Apex XD50a.

You can move the crosshairs in any of the scopes, but it is not what I could consider to being a particularly dial-friendly experience for long range shooting, no.

Rangefinding? The MKIII scopes have a stadiometric rangefinder. I don't trust it. For example, I don't know how it would know the difference between a 200 lb pig at 200 yards and a 400 lb pig at 400 yards.

geo, I do know people who take off scopes and use them as monoculars. I think it is a really bad idea. Before anyone gives me hell for not having faith in the gear and manufacturer promises of return to zero mounts, I have seen problems happen several times with clip-on thermals that go in front of daylight scopes and with a couple of guys that regularly move their scopes between rifles. It is my opinion as I have seen problems in the field. Maybe the user gets in too much of a hurry and doesn't get the scope on just right in the dark. I don't know, but the result is that the user was unable to hit the target and follow verification produced the same error. Several scopes have multiple rifle settings so that you can move a scope between rifles. I think that is fine, but that the user should shoot a verification shot to be sure the scope is ON.

Personally, I like the idea of the multiple rifle settings to be used as settings for different types of ammunition. Without ever adjusting the zero, you can flip between rifle settings such that you can use your light bullets (e.g., Rifle Mode 1) and change to your heavy bullets (e.g., Rifle Mode 2) without having to remember the difference between them. In other words, in less time it would take you to change ammo in the gun, you could go from your coyote ammo zero to your hog ammo zero.

With that said, if you move your scope between rifles without verification or are taking off the scope and using it as a monocular and you are happy with the results, great. I just don't trust the process. I will point out that you don't see many serious hunters doing this with their daylight scopes.

 

[WildRose]

I have seen where folks are hitting coyotes with Pulsar Apex XD50a at 200 yards. It is a bit of an iffy process in the sense that you can't tell if it is a coyote or a fox or what, but you can tell the movement is canid. A guy up in Colorado that I am in touch with is hitting coyotes at 350 yards with the IR Hunter MKII 2.5x. As you saw above, I could have taken the coyote with the MKIII 4.5x at 325 yards (and certainly much farther) if I had a clue where my bullet was impacting at that distance. The video showed deer at 800 and I bet I could ID a coyote at that distance. IIRC correctly, my longest coyote kill with an Armasight Zeus 3 was 200 yards, but it could have been farther (capability-wise)...
https://youtu.be/_pororI4gWA

I have seen/identified coyotes at over 400 yards with the Zeus 3, but I don't shoot that far.

One of the problems with assessing "maximum range" is that ambient conditions come into play and can really impact distance. Another problem is that most shooters either do not state the distances of their kills or state them but you don't know how accurate the assessment really is. Some folks are prone to improper estimation. What I am telling you here are maximum distances that I know of personally or believe the user to be credible in his assessment. That does not mean these are the maximum distances for the scope, although it probably is close on the Pulsar Apex XD50a.

You can move the crosshairs in any of the scopes, but it is not what I could consider to being a particularly dial-friendly experience for long range shooting, no.

Rangefinding? The MKIII scopes have a stadiometric rangefinder. I don't trust it. For example, I don't know how it would know the difference between a 200 lb pig at 200 yards and a 400 lb pig at 400 yards.

geo, I do know people who take off scopes and use them as monoculars. I think it is a really bad idea. Before anyone gives me hell for not having faith in the gear and manufacturer promises of return to zero mounts, I have seen problems happen several times with clip-on thermals that go in front of daylight scopes and with a couple of guys that regularly move their scopes between rifles. It is my opinion as I have seen problems in the field. Maybe the user gets in too much of a hurry and doesn't get the scope on just right in the dark. I don't know, but the result is that the user was unable to hit the target and follow verification produced the same error. Several scopes have multiple rifle settings so that you can move a scope between rifles. I think that is fine, but that the user should shoot a verification shot to be sure the scope is ON.

Personally, I like the idea of the multiple rifle settings to be used as settings for different types of ammunition. Without ever adjusting the zero, you can flip between rifle settings such that you can use your light bullets (e.g., Rifle Mode 1) and change to your heavy bullets (e.g., Rifle Mode 2) without having to remember the difference between them. In other words, in less time it would take you to change ammo in the gun, you could go from your coyote ammo zero to your hog ammo zero.

With that said, if you move your scope between rifles without verification or are taking off the scope and using it as a monocular and you are happy with the results, great. I just don't trust the process. I will point out that you don't see many serious hunters doing this with their daylight scopes.

Nice video and a great right up. I too am not a fan of trusting the guaranteed return to zero QD type mounts. Without verifying my zero I just don't trust them and I've tried some of the higher end units and found that while they will get you back close, close isn't good enough. There's too many variables involved especially when shooting at night already, adding more to the equation simply doesn't make sense to me.

 

[geo4061]

I am way too anal when it comes to accuracy and close just won't work for me. So the quick mounts are out. We had two other problems one with the scope and one with the monocular. The monocular caused night vision problem. It did not last very long but was bothersome. I guess because of pupil dilation. The scope had rangefinder lines, however, ranging at night was very difficult with or without the scope. Any suggestions?