[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is there any place for a cheap digital night vision scope in your arsenal? (Page 2 of 2)
| I have a sight mark wraith hd and used it to kill a bear after dark last year at 50 yards. Worked great for that application but I think the IR illumination lacks beyond 100 yards. Considering the price (sub $350), I definitely think it has a purpose. I will use it this winter to shoot raccoons in my yard. |
|
Quoted: Is an AGM Rattler TS25-256 a decent thermal, or should I save my pennies for the 384? 384x288 res= 110,592 pixels. 320x256 res= 81,920 pixels. 256x192 res= 49,152 pixels. The 256 will detect a long ways but give PID at probably 150-200yds. I've made multiple kills over 400yds with a 384 and LRF. Define your range. FWIW I might buy a 256 just as a scanner/buddy scope. |
|
Quoted: 384x288 res= 110,592 pixels. 320x256 res= 81,920 pixels. 256x192 res= 49,152 pixels. The 256 will detect a long ways but give PID at probably 150-200yds. I've made multiple kills over 400yds with a 384 and LRF. Define your range. FWIW I might buy a 256 just as a scanner/buddy scope. Quoted: Quoted: Is an AGM Rattler TS25-256 a decent thermal, or should I save my pennies for the 384? 384x288 res= 110,592 pixels. 320x256 res= 81,920 pixels. 256x192 res= 49,152 pixels. The 256 will detect a long ways but give PID at probably 150-200yds. I've made multiple kills over 400yds with a 384 and LRF. Define your range. FWIW I might buy a 256 just as a scanner/buddy scope. I live in the wide open, and I want to hunt yotes. Identifying activity at 800 yards would be nice, and positive identification at 300 would be desirable. |
|
Quoted: 384 is the least i would want for that. Quoted: Quoted: I live in the wide open, and I want to hunt yotes. Identifying activity at 800 yards would be nice, and positive identification at 300 would be desirable. 384 is the least i would want for that. Thank you. |
|
Quoted: Is an AGM Rattler TS25-256 a decent thermal, or should I save my pennies for the 384? A few years ago I figured I'd try out a clip-on. Went with the AGM TC19-256. Image was fine, but the clip on thing just wasn't my jam. Crappy video for you viewing pleasure  |
|
I have an ATN X-Sight 5-20x. No complaints. It does what it was designed to do. It sits on my 20" 6.5 Grendel. Works well for day time too. I do want the laser range finder for it at some point. The newer V5's can be had with the LRF built in. Now, if you are a died in the wool arfcomm operator type that's going to save the word "when it happens", then absolutely, "cheap" digital night vision is not for you. Only the top tier intensifier tube set ups and thermals at top-tier prices can be considered. Nothing less is acceptable. You'd never be caught dead with anything the "poors" might have or use. |
|
Quoted: I have a Rix K2 pocket thermal. It is one of the best purchases I have ever made. I am outside almost every night looking into the woods or out through the fields. I have a Storm with the resolution upgrade and it works great for me. I was shocked at how well it actually works for the price. I think it was a great buy. |
|
Quoted: Thank you. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I live in the wide open, and I want to hunt yotes. Identifying activity at 800 yards would be nice, and positive identification at 300 would be desirable. 384 is the least i would want for that. Thank you. You bet. Here is a running buck at about 75 yards, not perfectly focused and a coyote at about 90 yards, also not perfect focus. Don't mind the range, I had ranged him previously and he kept coming in. Date on the pic is wrong too. Scope is a Pulsar Thermion 2 XQ50 Pro LRF. Attached File Attached File There are some good comparison videos online where the scopes are all collimated to help you make an informed decision. Prior to the 384 I used a 320 for a few years ans it worked well, but the 384 definitely improves ID abilities further out. The 320 did not have LRF and I was using a promos trigger stick, with that combination my effective shooting range on yotes was about 200 yards. After upgrading to 384 and going to a tripod with ARCA clamp my effective range has more than doubled. Rifle is a home build AR with 77gr TMK handloads. My furthest yote last year was a touch over 420 yards though I did not attempt any further. LRF and a tripod are a game changer if you can swing it. Add a suppressor as well for more opportunities at a second shot ans less worries about waking people up in the middle of the night if you ever hunt somewhat close to homes. |
|
Quoted: No, and especially if you have real NV. Get a thermal instead. A cheap one will tell that there is something out there. A nice one will let you identify what that something is. Haven't seen it worded quite like that before. But.. that. Very that. Cheap thermal is still fabulous, but you fo need to closer and have more time. When you are excited, that deer looks very much like a hog at first thermal sighting. |
Digital night vision isn’t for me, but this thing looked pretty sweet. Maybe for a 22 critter killer. This Budget Device Turns EVERYTHING Into Night Vision! |
|
Quoted: Digital night vision isn’t for me, but this thing looked pretty sweet. Maybe for a 22 critter killer.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qavcq9cgRfcThank you posting this. Like the QD feature. Love the STS option. |
| I would be pushing it to shoot past 100 yds. As such I have a Wraith HD 4x32x50. The ir that comes with this unit is fine for that range. Saw a youtube video awhile back whereas people were installing larger ir's on it and said it made a big difference. Also have an AGM Rattler 256 that lives on my 10-22 for varmint control. |
I'm getting the urge to put this scope on my 458 SOCOM rifle.  " />https://imgur.com/Gek7i3Y |
|
I picked up the Sightmark Wraith 2-16 when PSA had them on sale. I use it for hogs on my place. Lots of fun. I did replace the IR illuminator with a Hog Sniper, but the one it comes with is ok, just cheap. I also have a thermal monocular. Unless the pigs start shooting back, I think I’m good. My brother has one of the Sionyx Sports (?) and it’s a fun little doodad. None of this is top tier stuff but would be better than nothing in a bad situation. |
|
Quoted: Is there any advantage to high end digital night vision, or does Thermal reign supreme for high end detection? If you want to know if something is out there, thermal is far superior and it's not even close. Digital might get you a better image depending on the specs of either scope but you'll need the illuminator and will be very limited in range. Just an example, I can see coyotes coming in to a call from over half a mile away and it sticks out being a white spot on black. You can't make PID that far but you can see something is coming. |
|
Quoted: Is there any advantage to high end digital night vision, or does Thermal reign supreme for high end detection? Two different use cases. Thermal - by far the best detection and killing warm things that may be hiding with the downside that unless you’re rockihg some kind of cooled thermal (30-40k) PID is going to drop off past 300m or so. NV / by far the best way to move in the dark, and get absolute PID if possible on unidentified critters or humans. Also NV can see through glass. Thermal can’t. Not a use case for everyone but still something to consider. Also, my personal opinion is digital Chinesium NV is fucking grade A junk. |
|
That looks incredibly useful!  Don't get me wrong, my DNV scope is not a "good" scope by any measure. It falls under the category of "cool" and "neat." |
|
Quoted: Two different use cases. Thermal - by far the best detection and killing warm things that may be hiding with the downside that unless you’re rockihg some kind of cooled thermal (30-40k) PID is going to drop off past 300m or so. NV / by far the best way to move in the dark, and get absolute PID if possible on unidentified critters or humans. Also NV can see through glass. Thermal can’t. Not a use case for everyone but still something to consider. Also, my personal opinion is digital Chinesium NV is fucking grade A junk. I've never used NV or thermal but it is on my wish list for Christmas this year. This is the second post that mentions thermal is not good while moving. Can you or someone else elaborate on that? I want something I can detach from my rifle and use as a monocular while walking. |
| My Iray RL25 cost less than my PVS14, its a game changer. Still working on bridging the units, hoping it works out and isnt overly retarded. Only thing I dislike about thermal units is the TV screen view, I wish it filled the eyebox like NV. As far as being weapon mounted, I feel passive aiming with NV and a dot is superior; thermal belongs on your head. |
|
Quoted: I've never used NV or thermal but it is on my wish list for Christmas this year. This is the second post that mentions thermal is not good while moving. Can you or someone else elaborate on that? I want something I can detach from my rifle and use as a monocular while walking. So you’re relying on temperature differentials in objects to gain definition. When it’s cold as hell or hot and humid out, or raining (the worst) most terrain looks exactly the same - kind of a varying shade gray blob especially with heavily wooded areas because essentially everything is the same temp. It also makes it where you’re not gonna see dips, exposed roots and small / medium holes very well and it’s a recipe to twist an ankle or generally eat shit. Depth perception is also shit. You *can* make it work if you’re moving relatively short distances but if you’re going past a km or more, you’re probably gonna hate your life. NV you’re seeing everything as it looks just in a blue / white or greenish hue but you can see changes in terrain easily - which also means camo that works to your eyes are going to work to NV as well and you’re not gonna see things that want to be hidden, especially if they’re stationary. |
|
Don’t confuse “best” with “budget.” A friend of mine bought a Rix thermal for about $800. Other than the resolution, I like it as good as my Super Hogster. In fact, it has some better features, like programmable reticles. I can see lots of case uses for a budget thermal, like: .22s and PCCs, scanning, loaners, spares, and budget friendly options. And here’s the scary part. Inexpensive thermal is so prevalent, that you need to assume that everyone, down to the school lunch lady, has access to it. Yeah, buy once, cry once is a thing. But, a casual user can have a boatload of fun with “cheap” thermal. I’ve also been pretty impressed with some of the new digital scopes. But, not so much from an “arsenal” standpoint but, more for fun. |
|
Quoted: So you’re relying on temperature differentials in objects to gain definition. When it’s cold as hell or hot and humid out, or raining (the worst) most terrain looks exactly the same - kind of a varying shade gray blob especially with heavily wooded areas because essentially everything is the same temp. It also makes it where you’re not gonna see dips, exposed roots and small / medium holes very well and it’s a recipe to twist an ankle or generally eat shit. Depth perception is also shit. You *can* make it work if you’re moving relatively short distances but if you’re going past a km or more, you’re probably gonna hate your life. NV you’re seeing everything as it looks just in a blue / white or greenish hue but you can see changes in terrain easily - which also means camo that works to your eyes are going to work to NV as well and you’re not gonna see things that want to be hidden, especially if they’re stationary. Quoted: Quoted: I've never used NV or thermal but it is on my wish list for Christmas this year. This is the second post that mentions thermal is not good while moving. Can you or someone else elaborate on that? I want something I can detach from my rifle and use as a monocular while walking. So you’re relying on temperature differentials in objects to gain definition. When it’s cold as hell or hot and humid out, or raining (the worst) most terrain looks exactly the same - kind of a varying shade gray blob especially with heavily wooded areas because essentially everything is the same temp. It also makes it where you’re not gonna see dips, exposed roots and small / medium holes very well and it’s a recipe to twist an ankle or generally eat shit. Depth perception is also shit. You *can* make it work if you’re moving relatively short distances but if you’re going past a km or more, you’re probably gonna hate your life. NV you’re seeing everything as it looks just in a blue / white or greenish hue but you can see changes in terrain easily - which also means camo that works to your eyes are going to work to NV as well and you’re not gonna see things that want to be hidden, especially if they’re stationary. Thanks for the explanation. "Get both" is not in the budget this year. I might have to shop for a good NV that can work as a monocular and quick attach back to the rifle. |
| i have 2 sightmark wraiths that are 4k and work really well. I also bought a agm adder ts35-50 , rattler 2 ts35-284 and a taipan monocular. i get them at cost so its a no brainer. the thermals work incredible hands down. hell i dont even use my pvs14 anymore..... |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is there any place for a cheap digital night vision scope in your arsenal? (Page 2 of 2)
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter