I recall (and searching confirms) that a bunch of dudes seemed to be having issues with these a year or two ago.   Any news on that front?  Is the focus on other brands driven mostly by specific features (internal recording, picture in picture), price vs. perceived value, or are there other things going on?

Anyone have specific input on composite housings vs. aluminum?

The variety of reticles in the new Reap-IRs is reaaaaalllllly attractive for the primary uses I have in mind - bolt guns, 5.56 AR's, and .300 AR's with super and subsonic.  

But a Nox 35 would probably do everything I need it to do and the advertised recoil rating up to .50 BMG is also interesting; if I can mount it on a .50, I most likely will just because  (EDIT - seeing conflicting info out there about this now).  Plus the 18650 battery support is nice.

I don't really need head-mounted support or a handy handheld scanner, although that doesn't hurt - I already have a Breach set up for hand/helmet use (and understand its limitations).  Mostly what I want is a weapon sight with more legs than the Breach, but isn't sacrificing too much in terms of FOV, weight, and size.  Also willing to plonk down extra for durability.

You have the helmet mounted thermal covered, so your looking for a dedicated thermal scope.
NVision X scope's IMHO have better controls + 18650 batteries, record  video + audio if needed, recoil rating.
Reap has better reticle options, but has side controls and still uses 123's.
Image is about the same.
Both made in USA.

I have an IR Hunter MKII 35mm (6 years old) and a REAP-IR 35mm (2 years old).  My Hunter was produced by IR Defense prior to their purchase by Trijicon.  At the near 4 year point (9 months out of warranty) the scope had a firmware failure.  Trijicon handled it superbly, and I got my scope back with no charge.  It has worked just fine another 2 years and will be going on yet another pig hunt in about 3 weeks.

The Hunter is my favorite thermal for my use case (relatively stationary pig hunting in the southeast).  Its turrets are easy to use and it is fairly tough.  It is heavy, and the weight savings is why I initially bought the REAP-IR as my second scope.  Unfortunately I never got proficient with the joystick control, especially with gloves on.  That's my fault for not practicing and preferring to tolerate the weight of the Hunter due to its simplicity.  I also use IR-X battery extenders in both scopes, and they greatly extend run time.

There's a lot newer and neater stuff on the market than what I have.  I don't video record and am not generally impressed by palettes for my use.  I rented a Hunter before I bought one, and it was very helpful in the purchase decision.  I bought the REAP-IR vs another brand because of Trijicon's customer service response to my scope's firmware failure.  I still haven't looked through any other consumer product that absolutely blows away my thermals in the conditions and distances where I hunt.  I wouldn't pay anywhere close to MSRP - better deals can be had.  But if it fits your needs I can heartily recommend them.

Good luck on your decision.  They're big investments for most of us.

Thanks for the input so far.

They rape batteries.
No focus
Video out for recording sux

All thermal is tough on batteries.
The other points are valid for those that care.

I run an ir patrol. It's tough on batteries so I researched heavily and came up with an effective rechargeable solution. I started a thread on here about this. Image quality is outstanding, controls are easy to use. I did not and continue to not care one bit about recording. The ir series are a winner.

I have a Reap35 IR2 that I use for night hunting hogs from a tripod.  Rifle is an 18 inch Grendel.  My brother has several high end 640 Pulsars with the bluetooth, recording, rechargeable battery packs and rangefinding.  I like the image of the Reap a little better and it's lighter and more compact.  But the Pulsar's ability to Bluetooth stream to a phone so you don't have to have your face in the scope all night is very nice.  Allows it to function as a spotter.  Also the laser rangefinding of the Pulsar is nice if hunting in unfamiliar territory or longer ranges.  I use a rechargeable Anker battery that goes forever so the battery life is a non issue for me.



Attached File

So with the new generation Reap-IR in hand - I like it quite a bit so far.  Going to just suck it up on the battery consumption front, although USB external power is an option.

I didn't realize it had a forged housing - I assume that's a new Trijicon addition for the current generation.  It is a tank but not really out of line in comparison with a LPVO (and lighter than some).

Manual NUC is a little annoying but I find the joystick controls simple to use.  The only thing I had to look at the manual for was confirming the battery orientation.  Magnification and clarity under digital zoom are right in line for what I'd want for a 5.56 platform; if I was focusing on .308 or 6.5CM I'd want the 60mm version of this or similar.

Looking forward to trying out the subsonic .300 BDC.  Seems like it would be most useful at digital 2x (which works out to 3.5x total, I think).

It took a lot of digging but I've found some posts indicating that Trijicon told someone that IR Defense miscalculated their magnification, and that the newer models aren't changed, just labeled differently.

I had a Type 1 Reap IR.  Sold it and bought a Super Yoter, sold that and bought a new AGM Adder 50-640.

IMHO the Reap is a solid scope quality wise but lacks a lot of features.  It absolutely eats batteries (any thermal running on 123s will), no focus, video recording is a pain.  Both my Yoter and Adder have a better picture than my Reap did, however I assume it's has gotten better on the newer models.  Manual nuc was annoying, much prefer auto nuc with a shutter.

I think you can get a lot more scope for less money buying something else, especially for just hunting.

Attached File

tagging with hopes that other Nox 35 / reap users chime in. would like to pick up one of these units but not a whole lot of data in comparison.