User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/21/2015 2:36:10 PM EDT
[#1]
For your criteria your only option is the IR Patrol from IR Defense.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2015 8:22:24 PM EDT
[#2]
I'm not a big fan of clipons in general. But they have their place.
I much prefer a dedicated thermal weapon sight that has a quick release mount that will return to a decent zero. (Read: Get a LaRue) Clipons are bulky additions that must be in front of your current site. They will make your rifle that much heavier and awkward. You also are likely going to loose a little bit of the total sight picture because of your day optic. But if you do lots of daytime hunting with your gun then it might be worth the pain. There are lots out there, but I've only ever used a TICO by ATN so I'm not sure how they stack up to each other. Skypup uses the heck out of a zillion different kinds of FLIR clipons he can probably give good advice. I think I've read that one of the IR Defence models can double as a stand alone site or a clipon. (So can the TICO, but using it as a stand alone is slightly weird) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2015 8:40:15 PM EDT
[#3]
I love me some hardcore mil-spec FLIR clip-ons (T-50, T-60, T-70 & T-75) with LaRue mounts that were built specifically to interface with my Truijicon ACOGs and Elcans perfectly, however they are expensive but worth every penny.
Clip-ons are always going to be more expensive than a dedicated thermal weapon scope due to critical lens collimation issues that have to be integrated into the instrument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2015 9:16:12 PM EDT
[#4]
I'm not a big fan of clipons in general. But they have their place.
I much prefer a dedicated thermal weapon sight that has a quick release mount that will return to a decent zero. (Read: Get a LaRue) Clipons are bulky additions that must be in front of your current site. They will make your rifle that much heavier and awkward. You also are likely going to loose a little bit of the total sight picture because of your day optic. But if you do lots of daytime hunting with your gun then it might be worth the pain. There are lots out there, but I've only ever used a TICO by ATN so I'm not sure how they stack up to each other. Skypup uses the heck out of a zillion different kinds of FLIR clipons he can probably give good advice. I think I've read that one of the IR Defence models can double as a stand alone site or a clipon. (So can the TICO, but using it as a stand alone is slightly weird) Great food for thought there. ^ I've went from dedicated sights to clip ons back to dedicated sights, and won't ever be going back to a clip on again. For one if your on foot for 6-8 hours a night clip ons add additional weight to your rig. Throw a ir laser, and can hanging on the business end of your rifle and you get a front heavy sob. Then you get into image quality. A dedicated weapon sight will have a better image than a clip on device whether it's I2 or thermal. You can put s&b glass behind a LR or 27 ,and a raptor or d series scope will produce a brighter, clearer image. With thermal it doesn't matter what glass you put behind it because your looking at a digital screen. Keep zooming in on the image and it will continue to go down hill. Saying that. Clip ons do have there place. If you have several different guns you want to run at night you can't beat a clip on. Throw it in front of your day scope and your good to go. However, if your only using one weapon,get a sight with larue mounts and your gtg. Right now the mk2's are very popular, but I've heard many happy customers with thors and flir R series scopes. Both The mk2 and the patrol (300 model) can be used as a standalone sight or a clip on sight. I've put my mk2 in front of my k-dot and it was ok, but a heavy sob. Dedicated image quality is much better than in a clip on role. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2015 9:58:25 PM EDT
[#5]
It is great to lend your clip-ons out to newbies and hunting buddies, slap 'em on their guns and go out hunting 30 seconds later, no BS targeting.
Never have experienced any image quality problems with any thermal clip-ons that I use. Here is one of my thermal clip-ons in compressed for web video action, don't think I could have done much better with any other clip-on or dedicated instrument: http://www.phossil.com/thom/Night%20Vision/FLIR%20T70/8%20Hogs.mp4 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2015 10:33:42 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
It is great to lend your clip-ons out to newbies and hunting buddies, slap 'em on their guns and go out hunting 30 seconds later, no BS targeting. Never have experienced any image quality problems with any thermal clip-ons that I use. Here is one of my thermal clip-ons in compressed for web video action, don't think I could have done much better with any other clip-on or dedicated instrument: http://www.phossil.com/thom/Night%20Vision/FLIR%20T70/8%20Hogs.mp4 A clip on unit will not have the same image quality looking through a day optic behind it compared to a dedicated weapon sight. Video taken with a clip on unit is taken through the unit itself and not the image seen through the day optic. A image can still look good, but not as good as the standalone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2015 10:41:05 PM EDT
[#7]
I disagree with that opinion, I experience no difference in any ability to kill anything out to the maximum range of my rifles using either a clip-on or a dedicated thermal scope at all. All of my clip-ons or dedicated thermals will easily snipe out a coon or armadillo with one shot at 250 yards.
I also like being able to lend out my clip-ons to hunters in our group to use on their weapons instead of giving them one of my weapons, they are much more familiar with their rifles and it is safer than letting them try to use one of mine they are not familiar with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2015 11:02:34 PM EDT
[#8]
Where in any of my statements did I ever say you couldn't kill something with a clip on at any range? I said "image quality " in a clip on will not be as good as a dedicated scope.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2015 11:09:23 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great food for thought there. ^ I've went from dedicated sights to clip ons back to dedicated sights, and won't ever be going back to a clip on again. For one if your on foot for 6-8 hours a night clip ons add additional weight to your rig. Throw a ir laser, and can hanging on the business end of your rifle and you get a front heavy sob. Then you get into image quality. A dedicated weapon sight will have a better image than a clip on device whether it's I2 or thermal. You can put s&b glass behind a LR or 27 ,and a raptor or d series scope will produce a brighter, clearer image. With thermal it doesn't matter what glass you put behind it because your looking at a digital screen. Keep zooming in on the image and it will continue to go down hill. Saying that. Clip ons do have there place. If you have several different guns you want to run at night you can't beat a clip on. Throw it in front of your day scope and your good to go. However, if your only using one weapon,get a sight with larue mounts and your gtg. Right now the mk2's are very popular, but I've heard many happy customers with thors and flir R series scopes. Both The mk2 and the patrol (300 model) can be used as a standalone sight or a clip on sight. I've put my mk2 in front of my k-dot and it was ok, but a heavy sob. Dedicated image quality is much better than in a clip on role. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not a big fan of clipons in general. But they have their place.
I much prefer a dedicated thermal weapon sight that has a quick release mount that will return to a decent zero. (Read: Get a LaRue) Clipons are bulky additions that must be in front of your current site. They will make your rifle that much heavier and awkward. You also are likely going to loose a little bit of the total sight picture because of your day optic. But if you do lots of daytime hunting with your gun then it might be worth the pain. There are lots out there, but I've only ever used a TICO by ATN so I'm not sure how they stack up to each other. Skypup uses the heck out of a zillion different kinds of FLIR clipons he can probably give good advice. I think I've read that one of the IR Defence models can double as a stand alone site or a clipon. (So can the TICO, but using it as a stand alone is slightly weird) Great food for thought there. ^ I've went from dedicated sights to clip ons back to dedicated sights, and won't ever be going back to a clip on again. For one if your on foot for 6-8 hours a night clip ons add additional weight to your rig. Throw a ir laser, and can hanging on the business end of your rifle and you get a front heavy sob. Then you get into image quality. A dedicated weapon sight will have a better image than a clip on device whether it's I2 or thermal. You can put s&b glass behind a LR or 27 ,and a raptor or d series scope will produce a brighter, clearer image. With thermal it doesn't matter what glass you put behind it because your looking at a digital screen. Keep zooming in on the image and it will continue to go down hill. Saying that. Clip ons do have there place. If you have several different guns you want to run at night you can't beat a clip on. Throw it in front of your day scope and your good to go. However, if your only using one weapon,get a sight with larue mounts and your gtg. Right now the mk2's are very popular, but I've heard many happy customers with thors and flir R series scopes. Both The mk2 and the patrol (300 model) can be used as a standalone sight or a clip on sight. I've put my mk2 in front of my k-dot and it was ok, but a heavy sob. Dedicated image quality is much better than in a clip on role. Agreed. Clip-on's serve a purpose for LONG range and setups that need better accuracy that a LaRue mount swapping on and off can maintain, which is again, LONG range and precision. More lenses to look through always means reduce image quality, thermal, visible, or NV. Weight sucks when you are mobile and shooting offhand at times. Weight toward the muzzle is the worst. Day optic plus more mass at the muzzle, BTDT and no thanks. The oft flaunted T-70 by SkyPimp is triple the price of an IRD mk2, and a heavier setup with the day optic, and the added weight is out front. It's an educated guess, but I bet the image quality is better from the 12 micron BAE/IRD mk2. I'll pass on the clip on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2015 7:39:50 AM EDT
[#10]
LOL, totally disagree, the "oft flaunted T-70" and the T-75s that I use also function as standalone dedicated scopes with internal BDC reticules for both 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO.
They can be used either as a clip-on or a standalone dedicated thermal weapon scopes. In clip-on mode, they both were specifically designed to be utilized with either an ACOG or an Elcan day optic for which they are collimated for. I do not notice any image improvement when used in standalone mode compared to clip-on mode, they both are outstanding as far as that goes? I do prefer to utilize them in clip-on mode for the versatility of using on multiple rifle platforms, but they all work excellent in standalone mode if that is how I want to use them. In fact, as far as "image quality" goes, I have never seen any better image quality/versatility from any other thermal scope, if I did, I would by it and be using it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2015 8:22:54 AM EDT
[#11]
Thanks everyone for your help so far. Ok, based on comments, for my first thermal I've decided to go with one dedicated to a single rifle. I'm thinking a 300blk AR platform. Additionally, based on input from everyone here, I think I've narrowed my search down to 2 that are in my price range and have the features I want, either the IR Hunter II or the ATN Thor 640. I really like the higher resolution these two offer. However, the feature differences have me torn between these two, the hunter has a 12 micron censor and 60mhz but the Thor has a higher resolution display and color option, is there anything I'm missing here? What says the hive, Thor or HunterII? Either company better to deal with? Is there a better reliability factor with the mfg of one over the other?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2015 8:28:24 AM EDT
[#12]
Color modes are useless other than FLIR instalert. Ask anyone who has a device with it, and I bet they will tell you they only use BH & WH.
The Thor units seem to get good reviews, but I cant bring myself to buy from ATN. Too much shady marketing out there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2015 8:39:46 AM EDT
[#13]
You will first have to figure out the ranges at which you wish to engage, what FOV you are comfortable using, what if any magnification you need or don't need, and how long you seriously plan on using the thermal optic.
If you are planning on using it for five years or more, get the best one with the best warranty package, if you are only using it this year and maybe next, get the cheapest one and sell it when you are finished using it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2015 8:05:59 PM EDT
[#14]
Pulsar APEX for 3 - 4k and save the rest of the money as seed money for the next generation of products on 2 - 3 years...
Is there a reason to spend more money , what distances are you hunting at? HTXH 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2015 10:43:32 PM EDT
[#15]
Km |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2015 11:56:51 PM EDT
[#16]
With blackout, the effective range will be between 300-350yrds, primarily for coyote and hogs. I really want the higher resolution systems, I have a Pulsar N750, it was my first NV purchase, and while its not a bad option, If I had it to do over, I would have chosen something in a Gen two like the PVS14. That scope really turned me off for Pulsar and serious night vision.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 12:05:43 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With blackout, the effective range will be between 300-350yrds, primarily for coyote and hogs. I really want the higher resolution systems, I have a Pulsar N750, it was my first NV purchase, and while its not a bad option, If I had it to do over, I would have chosen something in a Gen two like the PVS14. That scope really turned me off for Pulsar and serious night vision. You cannot compare digital NV to thermal technology but your $$$ , enjoy the higher res systems and let us know how the 300+ yard hunting goes with 300 BO - that is pretty far out there for that cartridge for hogs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 8:12:35 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You cannot compare digital NV to thermal technology but your $$$ , enjoy the higher res systems and let us know how the 300+ yard hunting goes with 300 BO - that is pretty far out there for that cartridge for hogs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
With blackout, the effective range will be between 300-350yrds, primarily for coyote and hogs. I really want the higher resolution systems, I have a Pulsar N750, it was my first NV purchase, and while its not a bad option, If I had it to do over, I would have chosen something in a Gen two like the PVS14. That scope really turned me off for Pulsar and serious night vision. You cannot compare digital NV to thermal technology but your $$$ , enjoy the higher res systems and let us know how the 300+ yard hunting goes with 300 BO - that is pretty far out there for that cartridge for hogs. Not to start a whole new debate, but 300yrds is a pretty easy shot with blackout, we get 6-12in of penetration at that range depending on impact point, enough to drop an animal in the 250lb range. Not an Elk gun by any means, but great for hogs and dogs. As for the digital NV, I understand the difference, it's the company that I'm disappointed with, the optic was portrayed to me as superior to standard NV in every way, and while it works, like I said, money would have been better spent on real gen 2 NV. My mistake, live and learn, but I've shy'd away from them as a company since. In addition, I've watched several videos on both the Thor and the Hunter II and the resolution increase over the 320 units seems to be substantial. I also like the target outline on the Hunter II, and the color option on the Thor. It's been mentioned here that the color on the Thor never ends up getting used, I'm wondering if that's the case with the target outline as well. At this point, I'm leaning toward the hunter II for the outline and the 12micron sensor which seems to provide a much cleaner image based on the videos I've seen. Any thoughts on that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 9:23:44 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not to start a whole new debate, but 300yrds is a pretty easy shot with blackout, we get 6-12in of penetration at that range depending on impact point, enough to drop an animal in the 250lb range. Not an Elk gun by any means, but great for hogs and dogs. As for the digital NV, I understand the difference, it's the company that I'm disappointed with, the optic was portrayed to me as superior to standard NV in every way, and while it works, like I said, money would have been better spent on real gen 2 NV. My mistake, live and learn, but I've shy'd away from them as a company since. In addition, I've watched several videos on both the Thor and the Hunter II and the resolution increase over the 320 units seems to be substantial. I also like the target outline on the Hunter II, and the color option on the Thor. It's been mentioned here that the color on the Thor never ends up getting used, I'm wondering if that's the case with the target outline as well. At this point, I'm leaning toward the hunter II for the outline and the 12micron sensor which seems to provide a much cleaner image based on the videos I've seen. Any thoughts on that? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With blackout, the effective range will be between 300-350yrds, primarily for coyote and hogs. I really want the higher resolution systems, I have a Pulsar N750, it was my first NV purchase, and while its not a bad option, If I had it to do over, I would have chosen something in a Gen two like the PVS14. That scope really turned me off for Pulsar and serious night vision. You cannot compare digital NV to thermal technology but your $$$ , enjoy the higher res systems and let us know how the 300+ yard hunting goes with 300 BO - that is pretty far out there for that cartridge for hogs. Not to start a whole new debate, but 300yrds is a pretty easy shot with blackout, we get 6-12in of penetration at that range depending on impact point, enough to drop an animal in the 250lb range. Not an Elk gun by any means, but great for hogs and dogs. As for the digital NV, I understand the difference, it's the company that I'm disappointed with, the optic was portrayed to me as superior to standard NV in every way, and while it works, like I said, money would have been better spent on real gen 2 NV. My mistake, live and learn, but I've shy'd away from them as a company since. In addition, I've watched several videos on both the Thor and the Hunter II and the resolution increase over the 320 units seems to be substantial. I also like the target outline on the Hunter II, and the color option on the Thor. It's been mentioned here that the color on the Thor never ends up getting used, I'm wondering if that's the case with the target outline as well. At this point, I'm leaning toward the hunter II for the outline and the 12micron sensor which seems to provide a much cleaner image based on the videos I've seen. Any thoughts on that? My personal opinion is if you took the Pulsar bait hook-line-n-sinker and ended up unhappy due to informaiton that "portrayed the optic as superior to standard NV" then do yourself a BIG favor here and rent the units you are considering before pulling the trigger. Most will tell you that the IR Hunter MKII is where it is at right now, it has possibly the best image I have seen at $ 5.5k but you've got a tough hunting objective for ANY thermal. 300 - 350 yards = get the largest objective lens possible for your budget because ID is going to be a serious challenge at that distance. EDIT Granted FOV is greatly effected by core specs 25 vs 17 vs 12 micron - so again rent to determine the optic has the right configuration to give you best distance for the dollar. What about a thermal monocular and a bad ass Gen 3 weapon sight with high magnification for the same amount of money - that would be a superior setup I use color palettes every chance I get - I've never used the MKIIs outline feature for hunting. And as for the calibers performance, I just think there is a whole lot of variables involved with use beyond 300 yards - mainly I choose other cartridges that have more powder behind the 30 cal bullet to cause as much destruction as possible out of the AR15 platform. Seriously let us know how it goes - Ive got a Blackout myself but leave it in the truck if I need to reachout and touch something beyond 300. I love options, there are a good many these days
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 2:15:16 PM EDT
[#20]
Do you have a way to range accurately at night? You'll need it at 300 yds with a .300 BO, much less 350yds. It is very hard to eyeball with NV and especially thermal unless you know landmarks and/or have a LOT of practice. Things like tall grass can play major havoc with estimates since you can't really tell it's there or how tall it is.
Using Barnes 110gr @ 2400FPS (16" Barrel, best case scenario) 1.5" high @ 100yds -7.5" 250yds -16.0" @ 300yds, 5 mph crosswind +7.4" Right -27.7" at 350 yds, 5 mph crosswind +10.4" Right 250 to 350, you need a very accurate range and the wind becomes a factor big enough for a clean miss, even at only 5 mph. I havent found a handy & reasonably priced laser rangefinder solution for night vision work. Maybe others have and can chime in. A .243 Win would be a much better choice for minimizing the variables at 250+. I keep the vast majority of my shots 100yds or less, 50-75 is typical, 200 on rare occasion. It's usually way too easy to walk up closer, so why not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:06:47 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have a way to range accurately at night? You'll need it at 300 yds with a .300 BO, much less 350yds. It is very hard to eyeball with NV and especially thermal unless you know landmarks and/or have a LOT of practice. Things like tall grass can play major havoc with estimates since you can't really tell it's there or how tall it is. Using Barnes 110gr @ 2400FPS (16" Barrel, best case scenario) 1.5" high @ 100yds -7.5" 250yds -16.0" @ 300yds, 5 mph crosswind +7.4" Right -27.7" at 350 yds, 5 mph crosswind +10.4" Right 250 to 350, you need a very accurate range and the wind becomes a factor big enough for a clean miss, even at only 5 mph. I havent found a handy & reasonably priced laser rangefinder solution for night vision work. Maybe others have and can chime in. A .243 Win would be a much better choice for minimizing the variables at 250+. I keep the vast majority of my shots 100yds or less, 50-75 is typical, 200 on rare occasion. It's usually way too easy to walk up closer, so why not. I seek not to provoke the wrath of the mods so my company will remain nameless, however, we build a lot of blackout and we're currently getting really good numbers out to 400yrds with the Hornady 110 V-Max, though you make a very fair point, I hadn't thought of range finding. Previously, my night shooting has been done on my farm, I know the distances well. However, this purchase will send me on hog hunts to OK, TX, and FL. I'm sure I'll have to pick up something to address that issue. I'll spend considerable trigger time behind the optic before I head off to add to my pork chop inventory. Is there a preferred range finding device that works well with thermal or am I looking at the same basic units that I use for long distance shooting? And since you mentioned it, is a monocular in front of an elcan or an acog a good option, to be honest, I've never considered it. Thanks for all your help, I'm learning a lot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 9:39:22 AM EDT
[#22]
For pigs, there is no reason to take a shot that long, unless you just want to. Get the wind right, walk up to 50-75 yds, pop one, then start wreaking havoc on all the squirters. Often times they will run straight at you if you are using a can.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 9:49:36 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I disagree with that opinion, I experience no difference in any ability to kill anything out to the maximum range of my rifles using either a clip-on or a dedicated thermal scope at all. He isn't saying it can't be done, he's saying there is going to be a loss of quality with any clip on system vs dedicated. The output screen of the thermal scope is the best the image is going to get, any optic you have to put in between it and your eye can only make it worse. That's an undeniable fact. How much worse is really the question. If you have good glass, it will not be a big issue. However, people need to understand that even with good glass, you might be giving up some of the thermal pixels due to vignetting of the day optic. The higher the magnification, the worse this effect will be.  I'm not trying to stop peeps from buying clipons, I just want them to be informed. They are a great solution in many cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 10:06:23 AM EDT
[#24]
Not a problem, in my case all my FLIR GS thermal units are Standalone Dedicated Thermal weapon scopes with internal BDC reticules!
It just so happens that they can also be used as Clip-ons if so desired by placing them in front of either an ACOG or Elcan for which they were specifically designed for by FLIR and Truijicon and Raytheon Optical Engineers when they were designing these thermal optical instruments to operate in clip-on mode. 
In fact, I have never seen a better more powerful top notch standalone thermal image than when using the FLIR GS T-75 thermal weapon scope with the 125mm lens, totally AWESOME!
Personally, I can detect NO IMAGE DEGRADATION whatsoever when using both the ACOG and Elcan scopes in Clip-On modes for which they were specifically designed for. Perhaps trying to use some other manufacturers thermal clip-on with some other manufacturers day optic scopes for which these other thermal instruments were not specifically collimated for by those other manufacturers would result in some sort of image degradation as to which others elude to here, but with these FLIR GS instruments that is not a problem to be concerned about at all.
Even works outstanding even in hot pouring down drenching rain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXBtLfUaHy0 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 2:20:34 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He isn't saying it can't be done, he's saying there is going to be a loss of quality with any clip on system vs dedicated. The output screen of the thermal scope is the best the image is going to get, any optic you have to put in between it and your eye can only make it worse. That's an undeniable fact. How much worse is really the question. If you have good glass, it will not be a big issue. However, people need to understand that even with good glass, you might be giving up some of the thermal pixels due to vignetting of the day optic. The higher the magnification, the worse this effect will be. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3552650/TICO/5x.jpg I not trying to stop peeps from buying clipons, I just want them to be informed. They are a great solution in many cases. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I disagree with that opinion, I experience no difference in any ability to kill anything out to the maximum range of my rifles using either a clip-on or a dedicated thermal scope at all. He isn't saying it can't be done, he's saying there is going to be a loss of quality with any clip on system vs dedicated. The output screen of the thermal scope is the best the image is going to get, any optic you have to put in between it and your eye can only make it worse. That's an undeniable fact. How much worse is really the question. If you have good glass, it will not be a big issue. However, people need to understand that even with good glass, you might be giving up some of the thermal pixels due to vignetting of the day optic. The higher the magnification, the worse this effect will be. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3552650/TICO/5x.jpg I not trying to stop peeps from buying clipons, I just want them to be informed. They are a great solution in many cases. Bushman, Texas Law Man has posted some video and photos on his sight, Lone Star Boars, which show through the optic views of his clip on set up, an Armasight Apollo 640/30 in front of a Vortex 1x6, and the view excellent up through about 4x or so, and plenty good through 6x. In fact, the Apollo's screen does not fill the scope's FOV until about 2.75x or so, maybe 3x. And that is the optimal scope setting in his opinion. A fellow who has run the 19mm 1.45 MKII as a clip on as well as a stand alone reports the same wrt the screen of the MKII in clip on mode only filling the scope's FOV when zoomed to about 2.5x - 2.75x. 2.5x-2.75x X 1.45x = 3.6x-4x. So it seems that the clip on's, at least the Apollo, which can be used stand alone but is intended to be used as a clip on (vs. the MKII where set up is the opposite,) anticipate the use of some magnification, and provide for magnification without any loss of resolution up to the point where the screen fills most or maybe all of the scope's FOV. Yes? No? JPK |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 5:43:06 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bushman, Texas Law Man has posted some video and photos on his sight, Lone Star Boars, which show through the optic views of his clip on set up, an Armasight Apollo 640/30 in front of a Vortex 1x6, and the view excellent up through about 4x or so, and plenty good through 6x. In fact, the Apollo's screen does not fill the scope's FOV until about 2.75x or so, maybe 3x. And that is the optimal scope setting in his opinion. A fellow who has run the 19mm 1.45 MKII as a clip on as well as a stand alone reports the same wrt the screen of the MKII in clip on mode only filling the scope's FOV when zoomed to about 2.5x - 2.75x. 2.5x-2.75x X 1.45x = 3.6x-4x. So it seems that the clip on's, at least the Apollo, which can be used stand alone but is intended to be used as a clip on (vs. the MKII where set up is the opposite,) anticipate the use of some magnification, and provide for magnification without any loss of resolution up to the point where the screen fills most or maybe all of the scope's FOV. Yes? No? JPK Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I disagree with that opinion, I experience no difference in any ability to kill anything out to the maximum range of my rifles using either a clip-on or a dedicated thermal scope at all. He isn't saying it can't be done, he's saying there is going to be a loss of quality with any clip on system vs dedicated. The output screen of the thermal scope is the best the image is going to get, any optic you have to put in between it and your eye can only make it worse. That's an undeniable fact. How much worse is really the question. If you have good glass, it will not be a big issue. However, people need to understand that even with good glass, you might be giving up some of the thermal pixels due to vignetting of the day optic. The higher the magnification, the worse this effect will be. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3552650/TICO/5x.jpg I not trying to stop peeps from buying clipons, I just want them to be informed. They are a great solution in many cases. Bushman, Texas Law Man has posted some video and photos on his sight, Lone Star Boars, which show through the optic views of his clip on set up, an Armasight Apollo 640/30 in front of a Vortex 1x6, and the view excellent up through about 4x or so, and plenty good through 6x. In fact, the Apollo's screen does not fill the scope's FOV until about 2.75x or so, maybe 3x. And that is the optimal scope setting in his opinion. A fellow who has run the 19mm 1.45 MKII as a clip on as well as a stand alone reports the same wrt the screen of the MKII in clip on mode only filling the scope's FOV when zoomed to about 2.5x - 2.75x. 2.5x-2.75x X 1.45x = 3.6x-4x. So it seems that the clip on's, at least the Apollo, which can be used stand alone but is intended to be used as a clip on (vs. the MKII where set up is the opposite,) anticipate the use of some magnification, and provide for magnification without any loss of resolution up to the point where the screen fills most or maybe all of the scope's FOV. Yes? No? JPK Increasing the magnification is only increasing the size of the pixels (screen) in front of the scope, I would assume that would degrade the image. Correct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 5:56:21 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So it seems that the clip on's, at least the Apollo, which can be used stand alone but is intended to be used as a clip on (vs. the MKII where set up is the opposite,) anticipate the use of some magnification, and provide for magnification without any loss of resolution up to the point where the screen fills most or maybe all of the scope's FOV. Yes? No? JPK If they are set up to work with magnification without loss of resolution then I don't see how they would also work with no magnification. Actually, it isn't fair to say that there is a loss of resolution, the thermal resolution always stays the same, its just that if you put a magnified scope in front of it, you are zooming in on pixels. One thing that you can't get around is that you are putting a rectangular image in front of a scope with a circular view. You are going to have to throw away something somewhere in this scenario. Does it matter enough? Meh, depends I guess. Skypup, can you take some pics for us? I'd love to see how the FLIR's made for high mag scopes look with and without a scope in front of them. The TICO has the ability to work as a standalone, but it isn't nearly as comfortable to the eye as a dedicated ThOR. I'll have to take a video later, its hard to explain in words. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 6:23:41 PM EDT
[#28]
The FLIR GS T-70/T-75 only function 100% like I mentioned when used as clip-ons in front of the ACOG and Elcan for which they are specifically designed to interface with by FLIR, Truijicon, and Raytheon, during the initial R&D for these instruments, any other scopes do NOT work like I mentioned with these thermals and you will lose FOV, image, and not see the icons in the image screen.
They are complete standalone dedicated scopes too. I know of no other thermal weapon scopes that are specifically designed to interface with any specific day optics (None)? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2015 11:56:36 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they are set up to work with magnification without loss of resolution then I don't see how they would also work with no magnification. Actually, it isn't fair to say that there is a loss of resolution, the thermal resolution always stays the same, its just that if you put a magnified scope in front of it, you are zooming in on pixels. One thing that you can't get around is that you are putting a rectangular image in front of a scope with a circular view. You are going to have to throw away something somewhere in this scenario. Does it matter enough? Meh, depends I guess. Skypup, can you take some pics for us? I'd love to see how the FLIR's made for high mag scopes look with and without a scope in front of them. The TICO has the ability to work as a standalone, but it isn't nearly as comfortable to the eye as a dedicated ThOR. I'll have to take a video later, its hard to explain in words. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So it seems that the clip on's, at least the Apollo, which can be used stand alone but is intended to be used as a clip on (vs. the MKII where set up is the opposite,) anticipate the use of some magnification, and provide for magnification without any loss of resolution up to the point where the screen fills most or maybe all of the scope's FOV. Yes? No? JPK If they are set up to work with magnification without loss of resolution then I don't see how they would also work with no magnification. Actually, it isn't fair to say that there is a loss of resolution, the thermal resolution always stays the same, its just that if you put a magnified scope in front of it, you are zooming in on pixels. One thing that you can't get around is that you are putting a rectangular image in front of a scope with a circular view. You are going to have to throw away something somewhere in this scenario. Does it matter enough? Meh, depends I guess. Skypup, can you take some pics for us? I'd love to see how the FLIR's made for high mag scopes look with and without a scope in front of them. The TICO has the ability to work as a standalone, but it isn't nearly as comfortable to the eye as a dedicated ThOR. I'll have to take a video later, its hard to explain in words. Bushman, Fulauototank, What I am trying to get across is that, at least with the Apollo, you need 2x plus magnification to get the corners of the screen to "touch" the outer rim of the round scope FOV. So, if comparing to a dedicated thermal scope, say a Zuess scope (same core, same maker,) of about 2x magnification or so, it appears you would have roughly the same view of the screen, pixels, target. Then, if you employ optical zoom with the clip on you are zooming in on the screen's pixels, essentially cutting resolution of both the sensor and the screen. If you zoom with the digital using either a dedicated scope or a clip on you are also cutting resolution, but only at the sensor level, not the screen level since the screen stays the same size. Long and short, it appears to me that with a thermal clip on, at least the Appolo, you give up very little, maybe nothing, compared to a dedicated thermal scope at 2-3x, where the screen of the clip on fills the FOV of the day scope. At least if your day scope is very good. JPK |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2015 7:11:02 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
. Bushman, Fulauototank, What I am trying to get across is that, at least with the Apollo, you need 2x plus magnification to get the corners of the screen to "touch" the outer rim of the round scope FOV. So, if comparing to a dedicated thermal scope, say a Zuess scope (same core, same maker,) of about 2x magnification or so, it appears you would have roughly the same view of the screen, pixels, target. Then, if you employ optical zoom with the clip on you are zooming in on the screen's pixels, essentially cutting resolution of both the sensor and the screen. If you zoom with the digital using either a dedicated scope or a clip on you are also cutting resolution, but only at the sensor level, not the screen level since the screen stays the same size. Long and short, it appears to me that with a thermal clip on, at least the Appolo, you give up very little, maybe nothing, compared to a dedicated thermal scope at 2-3x, where the screen of the clip on fills the FOV of the day scope. At least if your day scope is very good. JPK Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So it seems that the clip on's, at least the Apollo, which can be used stand alone but is intended to be used as a clip on (vs. the MKII where set up is the opposite,) anticipate the use of some magnification, and provide for magnification without any loss of resolution up to the point where the screen fills most or maybe all of the scope's FOV. Yes? No? JPK If they are set up to work with magnification without loss of resolution then I don't see how they would also work with no magnification. Actually, it isn't fair to say that there is a loss of resolution, the thermal resolution always stays the same, its just that if you put a magnified scope in front of it, you are zooming in on pixels. One thing that you can't get around is that you are putting a rectangular image in front of a scope with a circular view. You are going to have to throw away something somewhere in this scenario. Does it matter enough? Meh, depends I guess. Skypup, can you take some pics for us? I'd love to see how the FLIR's made for high mag scopes look with and without a scope in front of them. The TICO has the ability to work as a standalone, but it isn't nearly as comfortable to the eye as a dedicated ThOR. I'll have to take a video later, its hard to explain in words. Bushman, Fulauototank, What I am trying to get across is that, at least with the Apollo, you need 2x plus magnification to get the corners of the screen to "touch" the outer rim of the round scope FOV. So, if comparing to a dedicated thermal scope, say a Zuess scope (same core, same maker,) of about 2x magnification or so, it appears you would have roughly the same view of the screen, pixels, target. Then, if you employ optical zoom with the clip on you are zooming in on the screen's pixels, essentially cutting resolution of both the sensor and the screen. If you zoom with the digital using either a dedicated scope or a clip on you are also cutting resolution, but only at the sensor level, not the screen level since the screen stays the same size. Long and short, it appears to me that with a thermal clip on, at least the Appolo, you give up very little, maybe nothing, compared to a dedicated thermal scope at 2-3x, where the screen of the clip on fills the FOV of the day scope. At least if your day scope is very good. JPK I agree that you lose very little resolution with thermals that are designed with clip-on ability as long as the thermal gives you a quality image. 3 magnification will not change resolution much, but beyond 4 or 5 power degradation of the image increases rapidly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 10:02:25 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree that you lose very little resolution with thermals that are designed with clip-on ability as long as the thermal gives you a quality image. 3 magnification will not change resolution much, but beyond 4 or 5 power degradation of the image increases rapidly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So it seems that the clip on's, at least the Apollo, which can be used stand alone but is intended to be used as a clip on (vs. the MKII where set up is the opposite,) anticipate the use of some magnification, and provide for magnification without any loss of resolution up to the point where the screen fills most or maybe all of the scope's FOV. Yes? No? JPK If they are set up to work with magnification without loss of resolution then I don't see how they would also work with no magnification. Actually, it isn't fair to say that there is a loss of resolution, the thermal resolution always stays the same, its just that if you put a magnified scope in front of it, you are zooming in on pixels. One thing that you can't get around is that you are putting a rectangular image in front of a scope with a circular view. You are going to have to throw away something somewhere in this scenario. Does it matter enough? Meh, depends I guess. Skypup, can you take some pics for us? I'd love to see how the FLIR's made for high mag scopes look with and without a scope in front of them. The TICO has the ability to work as a standalone, but it isn't nearly as comfortable to the eye as a dedicated ThOR. I'll have to take a video later, its hard to explain in words. Bushman, Fulauototank, What I am trying to get across is that, at least with the Apollo, you need 2x plus magnification to get the corners of the screen to "touch" the outer rim of the round scope FOV. So, if comparing to a dedicated thermal scope, say a Zuess scope (same core, same maker,) of about 2x magnification or so, it appears you would have roughly the same view of the screen, pixels, target. Then, if you employ optical zoom with the clip on you are zooming in on the screen's pixels, essentially cutting resolution of both the sensor and the screen. If you zoom with the digital using either a dedicated scope or a clip on you are also cutting resolution, but only at the sensor level, not the screen level since the screen stays the same size. Long and short, it appears to me that with a thermal clip on, at least the Appolo, you give up very little, maybe nothing, compared to a dedicated thermal scope at 2-3x, where the screen of the clip on fills the FOV of the day scope. At least if your day scope is very good. JPK I agree that you lose very little resolution with thermals that are designed with clip-on ability as long as the thermal gives you a quality image. 3 magnification will not change resolution much, but beyond 4 or 5 power degradation of the image increases rapidly. I see what you are saying zooming in with your day scope to make the thermal viewing screen fill the FOV of your day scope. You definitely want to do this but I don't believe there are many clip-on on thermals at this time that will require you to do this as far as I've seen or read about. Obviously the Appolo does as you say but how many types of clip-on thermals are set up that way? I know from limited experience with the CNVD-T clip-on even at 1x you don't get the full thermal viewing screen in the FOV of the day optic. Maybe Skypup can give some info about the FLIR's T-70 and especially the long range T-75 which is designed to work with higher magnification day optics if remember correctly. I've read about the CNVD-T3 and it states you can change settings so that when using as a handheld or for spotting it doesn't look like you are looking through a tube. Kind of like looking through a toilet paper roll to see the screen. I believe the BAE UTC falls into this category also from my research. These are designed so that when using days scopes you need magnification to get the thermal viewing screen to fill your FOV and some have a .5x magnification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 10:30:23 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Color modes are useless other than FLIR instalert. Ask anyone who has a device with it, and I bet they will tell you they only use BH & WH. The Thor units seem to get good reviews, but I cant bring myself to buy from ATN. Too much shady marketing out there. In daytime use the iron pallets is superior. At night I flip between WH BH and Rain depending on comditions try are all equally as useful. The ONLY pallet I find no use for is RED, other than that they all have a great use. The recently self updated RS -64 I use is a superior weapon scope to the IRH MKI units. And a close to the MKII image wise. I prefer the IRD menu adjustments. IMO That is the only thing IRH has a serious advantage over the FLIR units and I have used them all. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 11:51:43 AM EDT
[#33]
I use the color pallets extensively too, they are great for fishing out questionable things that I cannot quite differentiate using the White?Black modes, I do usually shoot on Black Hot since it gives the highest contrast definition for me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 2:29:20 PM EDT
[#34]
So, What about the FLIR RS64? I know it's a few thousand more, is it worth it over the Hunter MKII?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 2:38:21 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I must wholeheartedly disagree with you here. The FLIR color pallets are extremely useful. I In daytime use the iron pallets is superior. At night I flip between WH BH and Rain depending on comditions try are all equally as useful. The ONLY pallet I find no use for is RED, other than that they all have a great use. The recently self updated RS -64 I use is a superior weapon scope to the IRH MKI units. And a close to the MKII image wise. I prefer the IRD menu adjustments. IMO That is the only thing IRH has a serious advantage over the FLIR units and I have used them all. YMMV. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Color modes are useless other than FLIR instalert. Ask anyone who has a device with it, and I bet they will tell you they only use BH & WH. The Thor units seem to get good reviews, but I cant bring myself to buy from ATN. Too much shady marketing out there. Interesting, anyone have video through the newly updated units that have the better image? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 2:43:13 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For pigs, there is no reason to take a shot that long, unless you just want to. Get the wind right, walk up to 50-75 yds, pop one, then start wreaking havoc on all the squirters. Often times they will run straight at you if you are using a can. You're right of course, and the truth is, I will probably never take a night shot over 150, but having the option and maximizing the performance for money spent is my goal hear. I guess, I'm trying to say, I'd like to get the best thermal optic for the money in the $5k-7k range that I can. Features matter, but resolution, to me is extremely important. The clearer the image, the more I will trust the unit. And I really like the color options from what I've seen so far, which is why I have yet to pull the trigger on the Hunter MKII. Are there any other 12micron 640 scopes that are worth a look? Perhaps one that offers color and is reliable? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 2:55:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, What about the FLIR RS64? I know it's a few thousand more, is it worth it over the Hunter MKII? Pros: -User upgradeable, upgrades are constantly available as improvements are made The last upgrade was like obtaining a next generation model -unmatched warranty service replacement/repair -multiple color pallets that are very useful as well as insta alert which alone is an invaluable feature -multiple user/gun settings can be saved to quickly switch from one rifle to another in an instant Cons: -Menu system is push button and relatively slow to manipulate if needed. -LCD screen, people "say" is a huge step down in image quality I don't agree with that, slightly yes, huge no. IRD MKII Pros: -OLED display is slightly better than LED apples to apples -menu knobs are user friendly and the best I have encountered in thermal scopes, VERY quick and easy. -protective lens over germanium nice feature Cons: -has software issues, gentleman from IRD posted that they were working on that....... -warranty service ??? Have not heard any reports yet so it's a guess. -not user upgradable, HUGE negative IMO. -sits uncomfortably low on the rail for my likes, I am not a long necked or tall guy. -eats batteries, or functions poorly on low batteries, a battery extender just introduced to fix this -sight in ststem is IMO convoluted, works in reverse and can be somewhat difficult, it seems 50/50 here report it is easy/hard so YMMV. -rubber eyecup will likely be lost the first night you hunt so buy an extra or glue/zip tie it to the unit. I tried my best to be fair in this comparison, I'm sure a few will be along to add to this. IMO having used the units the user upgradeability and warranty service alone are worth buying FLIR. As I said the last upgrade was like getting a next gen unit image and function wise. The MKii has a better image and an extremely better menu knob system. Warranty service/replacement proof is not out there yet. Who knows. Not upgrade able by user so it's a send it in, pay and wait if that is ever even an option or buy the next gen unit....you are somewhat over a barrel without a user upgrade feature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 5:02:35 PM EDT
[#38]
And of course Flir's new 11 micron sensor will be out next, they would have gone down to 7 microns but it would have cut the wavelength in half...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 5:17:41 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And of course Flir's new 11 micron sensor will be out next, they would have gone down to 7 microns but it would have cut the wavelength in half... I'm unfamiliar with how the FLIR upgrade works, would that make the unit upgradable to 11microns and if so, what kind of cost and time frame would be involved in the upgrade? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 5:29:19 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're right of course, and the truth is, I will probably never take a night shot over 150, but having the option and maximizing the performance for money spent is my goal hear. I guess, I'm trying to say, I'd like to get the best thermal optic for the money in the $5k-7k range that I can. Features matter, but resolution, to me is extremely important. The clearer the image, the more I will trust the unit. And I really like the color options from what I've seen so far, which is why I have yet to pull the trigger on the Hunter MKII. Are there any other 12micron 640 scopes that are worth a look? Perhaps one that offers color and is reliable? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For pigs, there is no reason to take a shot that long, unless you just want to. Get the wind right, walk up to 50-75 yds, pop one, then start wreaking havoc on all the squirters. Often times they will run straight at you if you are using a can. You're right of course, and the truth is, I will probably never take a night shot over 150, but having the option and maximizing the performance for money spent is my goal hear. I guess, I'm trying to say, I'd like to get the best thermal optic for the money in the $5k-7k range that I can. Features matter, but resolution, to me is extremely important. The clearer the image, the more I will trust the unit. And I really like the color options from what I've seen so far, which is why I have yet to pull the trigger on the Hunter MKII. Are there any other 12micron 640 scopes that are worth a look? Perhaps one that offers color and is reliable? Just a thought, but in that price range it seems that features that enhance range capability adversely effect shorter range performance. For example, greater magnification is important for the very extended ranges you are talking about, but the greater magnification cuts down FOV, which is critically important in many shorter range night time situations, like hog hunting. It seems to me that the only devices that allow long range use without negatively impacting more typical night ranges are the more expensive FLIR clip ons, Like Sky Pup's, or perhaps the LWTS. JPK |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 5:31:11 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see what you are saying zooming in with your day scope to make the thermal viewing screen fill the FOV of your day scope. You definitely want to do this but I don't believe there are many clip-on on thermals at this time that will require you to do this as far as I've seen or read about. Obviously the Appolo does as you say but how many types of clip-on thermals are set up that way? I know from limited experience with the CNVD-T clip-on even at 1x you don't get the full thermal viewing screen in the FOV of the day optic. Maybe Skypup can give some info about the FLIR's T-70 and especially the long range T-75 which is designed to work with higher magnification day optics if remember correctly. I've read about the CNVD-T3 and it states you can change settings so that when using as a handheld or for spotting it doesn't look like you are looking through a tube. Kind of like looking through a toilet paper roll to see the screen. I believe the BAE UTC falls into this category also from my research. These are designed so that when using days scopes you need magnification to get the thermal viewing screen to fill your FOV and some have a .5x magnification. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So it seems that the clip on's, at least the Apollo, which can be used stand alone but is intended to be used as a clip on (vs. the MKII where set up is the opposite,) anticipate the use of some magnification, and provide for magnification without any loss of resolution up to the point where the screen fills most or maybe all of the scope's FOV. Yes? No? JPK If they are set up to work with magnification without loss of resolution then I don't see how they would also work with no magnification. Actually, it isn't fair to say that there is a loss of resolution, the thermal resolution always stays the same, its just that if you put a magnified scope in front of it, you are zooming in on pixels. One thing that you can't get around is that you are putting a rectangular image in front of a scope with a circular view. You are going to have to throw away something somewhere in this scenario. Does it matter enough? Meh, depends I guess. Skypup, can you take some pics for us? I'd love to see how the FLIR's made for high mag scopes look with and without a scope in front of them. The TICO has the ability to work as a standalone, but it isn't nearly as comfortable to the eye as a dedicated ThOR. I'll have to take a video later, its hard to explain in words. Bushman, Fulauototank, What I am trying to get across is that, at least with the Apollo, you need 2x plus magnification to get the corners of the screen to "touch" the outer rim of the round scope FOV. So, if comparing to a dedicated thermal scope, say a Zuess scope (same core, same maker,) of about 2x magnification or so, it appears you would have roughly the same view of the screen, pixels, target. Then, if you employ optical zoom with the clip on you are zooming in on the screen's pixels, essentially cutting resolution of both the sensor and the screen. If you zoom with the digital using either a dedicated scope or a clip on you are also cutting resolution, but only at the sensor level, not the screen level since the screen stays the same size. Long and short, it appears to me that with a thermal clip on, at least the Appolo, you give up very little, maybe nothing, compared to a dedicated thermal scope at 2-3x, where the screen of the clip on fills the FOV of the day scope. At least if your day scope is very good. JPK I agree that you lose very little resolution with thermals that are designed with clip-on ability as long as the thermal gives you a quality image. 3 magnification will not change resolution much, but beyond 4 or 5 power degradation of the image increases rapidly. I see what you are saying zooming in with your day scope to make the thermal viewing screen fill the FOV of your day scope. You definitely want to do this but I don't believe there are many clip-on on thermals at this time that will require you to do this as far as I've seen or read about. Obviously the Appolo does as you say but how many types of clip-on thermals are set up that way? I know from limited experience with the CNVD-T clip-on even at 1x you don't get the full thermal viewing screen in the FOV of the day optic. Maybe Skypup can give some info about the FLIR's T-70 and especially the long range T-75 which is designed to work with higher magnification day optics if remember correctly. I've read about the CNVD-T3 and it states you can change settings so that when using as a handheld or for spotting it doesn't look like you are looking through a tube. Kind of like looking through a toilet paper roll to see the screen. I believe the BAE UTC falls into this category also from my research. These are designed so that when using days scopes you need magnification to get the thermal viewing screen to fill your FOV and some have a .5x magnification. FWIW, I have been told that the MKII's screen, when in clip on mode and when used as a clip on doesn't fill the FOV until about 2.5x. JPK |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 6:23:42 PM EDT
[#42]
Just a thought, but in that price range it seems that features that enhance range capability adversely effect shorter range performance. For example, greater magnification is important for the very extended ranges you are talking about, but the greater magnification cuts down FOV, which is critically important in many shorter range night time situations, like hog hunting.
It seems to me that the only devices that allow long range use without negatively impacting more typical night ranges are the more expensive FLIR clip ons, Like Sky Pup's, or perhaps the LWTS. A d-740 has a 10deg FOV and is my favorite nv (I2) scope that I've used. I always thought it was perfect for up close out to 300 yards. Movers were never a issue either. Now when they run back at you and are brushing up against your legs. Drop your goggles back down and use your ir laser. A 35mm mk2 has a 12 deg fov for comparison. Your not going to have any issues with shooting hogs with all these systems being discussed. You need to handle which ever scopes your considering because Every person is different and what one likes another might not. For me it was hands down the mk2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 7:04:52 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm unfamiliar with how the FLIR upgrade works, would that make the unit upgradable to 11microns and if so, what kind of cost and time frame would be involved in the upgrade? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And of course Flir's new 11 micron sensor will be out next, they would have gone down to 7 microns but it would have cut the wavelength in half... I'm unfamiliar with how the FLIR upgrade works, would that make the unit upgradable to 11microns and if so, what kind of cost and time frame would be involved in the upgrade? No, that is not a software upgrade, it is an entirely new microbolometer hardware upgrade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 7:08:45 PM EDT
[#44]
The entire FLIR Government Systems T-Series Standalone Thermal scopes were specifically designed with Truijicon to interface with the Truijicon ACOG day optics in Clip-On mode in a cooperative effort between FLIR & Truijicon during the research and development of these systems.
https://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product1.php?id=Thermal I do not know of any other thermal weapon scope that was originally designed from the ground up to specifically interface with a specific day optic. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 7:12:02 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, that is not a software upgrade, it is an entirely new microbolometer hardware upgrade. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And of course Flir's new 11 micron sensor will be out next, they would have gone down to 7 microns but it would have cut the wavelength in half... I'm unfamiliar with how the FLIR upgrade works, would that make the unit upgradable to 11microns and if so, what kind of cost and time frame would be involved in the upgrade? No, that is not a software upgrade, it is an entirely new microbolometer hardware upgrade. Thanks, That helps me understand the upgrade concept a little better, I wasn't sure if it involved hardware or just software. I'm going to rent the Hunter MKII, the Thor 640, and the FLIR RS64 and make the call from there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 9:05:57 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A d-740 has a 10deg FOV and is my favorite nv (I2) scope that I've used. I always thought it was perfect for up close out to 300 yards. Movers were never a issue either. Now when they run back at you and are brushing up against your legs. Drop your goggles back down and use your ir laser. A 35mm mk2 has a 12 deg fov for comparison. Your not going to have any issues with shooting hogs with all these systems being discussed. You need to handle which ever scopes your considering because Every person is different and what one likes another might not. For me it was hands down the mk2. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just a thought, but in that price range it seems that features that enhance range capability adversely effect shorter range performance. For example, greater magnification is important for the very extended ranges you are talking about, but the greater magnification cuts down FOV, which is critically important in many shorter range night time situations, like hog hunting.
It seems to me that the only devices that allow long range use without negatively impacting more typical night ranges are the more expensive FLIR clip ons, Like Sky Pup's, or perhaps the LWTS. A d-740 has a 10deg FOV and is my favorite nv (I2) scope that I've used. I always thought it was perfect for up close out to 300 yards. Movers were never a issue either. Now when they run back at you and are brushing up against your legs. Drop your goggles back down and use your ir laser. A 35mm mk2 has a 12 deg fov for comparison. Your not going to have any issues with shooting hogs with all these systems being discussed. You need to handle which ever scopes your considering because Every person is different and what one likes another might not. For me it was hands down the mk2. Your last sentence boils it down. For example, I almost never hunt with a scope set with magnification at more than minimum, which is usually around 1.5x, and I rarely zoom a scope for a shot. I am definitely going to go with the MKII, but it will be the 19mm with 1.45x and 22 degree FOV. But the D740 or the 35mm, 2.5x MKII, with 10-12 degrees of FOV, while fine for closer game are going to be relatively impotent at the 500yd range the OP wants to kill game at. But the high end thermal clip ons optimized for use with scopes with up to "5-6x"; "8x, but can be used with 10-12x"; 4-10x" (LWTS, FLIR T75, TC50 respectively, from TNVC) will be as good or probably better at rub your,leg range due to the greater FOV and better as the range stretches out. JPK |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 10:17:56 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
RS-64 Pros: -User upgradeable, upgrades are constantly available as improvements are made The last upgrade was like obtaining a next generation model -unmatched warranty service replacement/repair -multiple color pallets that are very useful as well as insta alert which alone is an invaluable feature -multiple user/gun settings can be saved to quickly switch from one rifle to another in an instant Cons: -Menu system is push button and relatively slow to manipulate if needed. -LCD screen, people "say" is a huge step down in image quality I don't agree with that, slightly yes, huge no. IRD MKII Pros: -OLED display is slightly better than LED apples to apples -menu knobs are user friendly and the best I have encountered in thermal scopes, VERY quick and easy. -protective lens over germanium nice feature Cons: -has software issues, gentleman from IRD posted that they were working on that....... -warranty service ??? Have not heard any reports yet so it's a guess. -not user upgradable, HUGE negative IMO. -sits uncomfortably low on the rail for my likes, I am not a long necked or tall guy. -eats batteries, or functions poorly on low batteries, a battery extender just introduced to fix this -sight in ststem is IMO convoluted, works in reverse and can be somewhat difficult, it seems 50/50 here report it is easy/hard so YMMV. -rubber eyecup will likely be lost the first night you hunt so buy an extra or glue/zip tie it to the unit. I tried my best to be fair in this comparison, I'm sure a few will be along to add to this. IMO having used the units the user upgradeability and warranty service alone are worth buying FLIR. As I said the last upgrade was like getting a next gen unit image and function wise. The MKii has a better image and an extremely better menu knob system. Warranty service/replacement proof is not out there yet. Who knows. Not upgrade able by user so it's a send it in, pay and wait if that is ever even an option or buy the next gen unit....you are somewhat over a barrel without a user upgrade feature. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So, What about the FLIR RS64? I know it's a few thousand more, is it worth it over the Hunter MKII? -User upgradeable, upgrades are constantly available as improvements are made The last upgrade was like obtaining a next generation model -unmatched warranty service replacement/repair -multiple color pallets that are very useful as well as insta alert which alone is an invaluable feature -multiple user/gun settings can be saved to quickly switch from one rifle to another in an instant Cons: -Menu system is push button and relatively slow to manipulate if needed. -LCD screen, people "say" is a huge step down in image quality I don't agree with that, slightly yes, huge no. IRD MKII Pros: -OLED display is slightly better than LED apples to apples -menu knobs are user friendly and the best I have encountered in thermal scopes, VERY quick and easy. -protective lens over germanium nice feature Cons: -has software issues, gentleman from IRD posted that they were working on that....... -warranty service ??? Have not heard any reports yet so it's a guess. -not user upgradable, HUGE negative IMO. -sits uncomfortably low on the rail for my likes, I am not a long necked or tall guy. -eats batteries, or functions poorly on low batteries, a battery extender just introduced to fix this -sight in ststem is IMO convoluted, works in reverse and can be somewhat difficult, it seems 50/50 here report it is easy/hard so YMMV. -rubber eyecup will likely be lost the first night you hunt so buy an extra or glue/zip tie it to the unit. I tried my best to be fair in this comparison, I'm sure a few will be along to add to this. IMO having used the units the user upgradeability and warranty service alone are worth buying FLIR. As I said the last upgrade was like getting a next gen unit image and function wise. The MKii has a better image and an extremely better menu knob system. Warranty service/replacement proof is not out there yet. Who knows. Not upgrade able by user so it's a send it in, pay and wait if that is ever even an option or buy the next gen unit....you are somewhat over a barrel without a user upgrade feature. We at IR Defense are going to turn on the lights to everyone, the first of a 6 episode video comparison series just went out on the forum. We have all the competing thermal sights lined up and will put them side by side which will eliminate opinions and just show pure evidence. We will be putting these out there regardless of which scope shines and which scopes do not. Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 10:29:48 PM EDT
[#48]
Great to hear Scott look forward to seeing these. What can you tell us about your companies warranty service? Replacement/repair within a day or two of receipt? Are upgrades going to be available from the factory for software? If so will that shopping be expedited and paid for by IRD? Any information would be great. Image quality is just a potion of the picture.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 10:31:16 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We at IR Defense are going to turn on the lights to everyone, the first of a 6 episode video comparison series just went out on the forum. We have all the competing thermal sights lined up and will put them side by side which will eliminate opinions and just show pure evidence. We will be putting these out there regardless of which scope shines and which scopes do not. Scott Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, What about the FLIR RS64? I know it's a few thousand more, is it worth it over the Hunter MKII? -User upgradeable, upgrades are constantly available as improvements are made The last upgrade was like obtaining a next generation model -unmatched warranty service replacement/repair -multiple color pallets that are very useful as well as insta alert which alone is an invaluable feature -multiple user/gun settings can be saved to quickly switch from one rifle to another in an instant Cons: -Menu system is push button and relatively slow to manipulate if needed. -LCD screen, people "say" is a huge step down in image quality I don't agree with that, slightly yes, huge no. IRD MKII Pros: -OLED display is slightly better than LED apples to apples -menu knobs are user friendly and the best I have encountered in thermal scopes, VERY quick and easy. -protective lens over germanium nice feature Cons: -has software issues, gentleman from IRD posted that they were working on that....... -warranty service ??? Have not heard any reports yet so it's a guess. -not user upgradable, HUGE negative IMO. -sits uncomfortably low on the rail for my likes, I am not a long necked or tall guy. -eats batteries, or functions poorly on low batteries, a battery extender just introduced to fix this -sight in ststem is IMO convoluted, works in reverse and can be somewhat difficult, it seems 50/50 here report it is easy/hard so YMMV. -rubber eyecup will likely be lost the first night you hunt so buy an extra or glue/zip tie it to the unit. I tried my best to be fair in this comparison, I'm sure a few will be along to add to this. IMO having used the units the user upgradeability and warranty service alone are worth buying FLIR. As I said the last upgrade was like getting a next gen unit image and function wise. The MKii has a better image and an extremely better menu knob system. Warranty service/replacement proof is not out there yet. Who knows. Not upgrade able by user so it's a send it in, pay and wait if that is ever even an option or buy the next gen unit....you are somewhat over a barrel without a user upgrade feature. We at IR Defense are going to turn on the lights to everyone, the first of a 6 episode video comparison series just went out on the forum. We have all the competing thermal sights lined up and will put them side by side which will eliminate opinions and just show pure evidence. We will be putting these out there regardless of which scope shines and which scopes do not. Scott 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/26/2015 10:41:14 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryFWIW, I have been told that the MKII's screen, when in clip on mode and when used as a clip on doesn't fill the FOV until about 2.5x. JPK To answer you question the IR HUNTER MK II is a very complex system and has many features, modes and abilities other scope do not. It seems most people do not understand the sight and how advanced it is over other systems on the market. First the IR HUNTER MKII is on par with sensor performance and image quality with systems that cost 2 to 3 times the money. Hands down this is the most important requirement of any thermal sight. You need to see first. The build quality is also extremely high and we remain as a company extremely diligent on being US content and Berry Compliant. Be aware, there are big brands out there that make kits offshore and then stick a core into them here and say US Made. 1. The IR HUNTER MKII is a superior dedicated weapon sight giving a unparalleled image with extreme clarity and detail. 2. The IR HUNTER MKII as a clip-on actually gives you two options. If you choose to run it in RCO mode (1/2 x) then the screen is half sized so you can see it with a higher magnification optic such as a ACOG 3x or 4x. If you run it in CCO mode (2x) then you will be able to get a full view with a 1x optic such as a EOTECH. We run the MKII with a Elcan Spectrer DR at 1x and I have not seen a better image on any thermal sight in clip-on mode. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
