Mine is a 640 unit, I would say the focus would be close for that distance. The clarity would still be very good, I tested the Rico and bolt, I preferred the internal screen of the bolt.
Upvote 0
Thermal Optics for Hunting
- Thread starter Ezana4CE
- Start date
I have not tried the bolt. I got the RICO because it's smaller. It goes on my Leshiy 2. I was looking for it to be small when folded-up.
Upvote 0
Thanks guys! Really appreciate your views. It is very lucky to have a user of these two models. I’m sure I’ll have a few more questions after doing a little more research.
Love to hear more and see more as you have the time.
Love to hear more and see more as you have the time.
Upvote 0
What would be the minimum size you guys would go with for a sensor? There is so many new terms that I need to know before buying one of these units
Upvote 0
@woogie_man See post #23 in this thread for a reference concerning terms for thermal optics. From what I’ve gathered, selecting the sensor size (resolution) and objective size (base magnification) depend a lot upon your intended application (distance, type of terrain, animal, etc). Can you be more specific about your intended use of thermal optics for hunting?
Upvote 0
I am looking right now for something to use with my airguns. BUT I would be quick to slap it on my 6.5 creedmoor or something else and smack critters around at extended range if possible.
Upvote 0
@woogie_man From what I’ve learned the environment (open space/field, woods, mountains, swamp, etc) and type of animal(s) are important factors. Take a coyote for example, they move a lot and can be very wary. For this animal you probably want a wider field of view (unless hunting in dense woodlands where your shots may be within 40 yards). This means that an optic with a smaller base magnification (1x - 2x) may be in order. If you’re looking to hunt hogs, then you may want higher magnification because they tend to move in lager groups, are less weary, and move differently so you may be able to get away with a higher magnification optic for various reasons.
This is from my very basic understanding. I am still learning, but I hope this makes some sense to you.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
384 with 12 um for me personally, I had an original superhogster. It was very light and pretty good image at 100 yards.
These were good conditions.
Iray makes some mini thermals that I think would be excellent for airgun use a rl25 (384)and rh25 (640) I also like Bering optics and pulsar.
I had an agm for a little bit, it was a spotter and had 2 major things I hated. Image was good, but when swapping image pallets white hot, rainbow, and red hot were dimmest on 1 while black hot was brightest on 1. Plus the internal screen really bothered my head. I’m running an older helion2 now and don’t have this issue.
Upvote 0
I’m guessing your Creedmoor is a bolt gun unless you are using an ar10…. Might lean towards a tube style scope. It’s more traditional feeling and eye positioning is a big deal, I’ve had to use risers and different offset rings to make other thermal/nightvision work. Most tube scopes run 30mm and have several quick swap profiles for different guns. I just built a 6mm arc, but I’m running a m3 357 right now. I do like that some scopes are rated higher too. Make sure to check that.
Upvote 0
Just upgraded from a agm varmint 384 to a Agm Adder 640. Wanted little better picture. Also like the tube style.
Upvote 0
Awesome! Can’t wait for your impressions, nice looking kit. I’d love to know how close you can focus and how well it’ll pick up rat size critters In the 25-35 yard range.
Upvote 0
Correct it is a bolt gun that I shoot out to longer ranges.
Have been looking at the clip on style of units so I can bounce around between different rifles when needed.
Upvote 0
I have not messed with a clip on so I can’t tell you much. I do know they work better on lower mag scopes. I’ve also heard getting them positioned the same each time can be an issue.
Upvote 0
One nice thing about the RICO is it comes with an integrated quick-release mount. You can also set multiple zeros for the reticles. The mount is very solid, and gives you a reliable zero between mounts, i.e. no fussing re-setting the zero.
Upvote 0
As far as the Rico series, they have two different mounts(maybe more). They are some of the better set ups I e handled
Upvote 0
I have one thermal, I Trijicon IR Hunter MkIII 35mm, 12 micron 640 sensor. It has a base magnification of 2.5 and I honestly wouldn't want to use it much past 150 yards, 200 at the most at which point I'd be at 3x digital mag which to me sucks. While I can digitally magnify it 4X, that is so bad it is a wasted option, 3X sucks pretty much for me, some say it is "ok". At 2x digital it gives 5x magnificaton and is perfectly useable, but nothing like the view through the 2.5 base magnification.
If you want to use thermal anywhere near 150 yards or more with a somewhat reasonable view in the eyepiece, you need something with a base magnification of at least 3.5 x, then you can digitally zoom 2x and be ok. By the time you get to 3x digital mag things are degrading a lot, and if you are looking at something 200 yards away it really sooooks. If I think about it, I'll set out a gallon of warm water in a few hours and take some pictures with my Trijicon at roughly 120 yards at base mag and digitally at 2x,3x, and 4x and post them.
Upvote 0
I have two, an Nvision NOX 35, and an Nvision HALO XRF. I use the NOX in my yard, but for long range shooting, onboard recording, and a rangefinder (which can be very useful at night), the HALO XRF has it all.
Upvote 0
Just got out my cable for the Trijicon, realized I hadn't put the trijicon download software on this computer yet, so I just loaded it and found I had a few pictures of a red tail hawk eating a rabbit she just killed just about 125 yards from my deck. Pictures show 2 things about thermal, how bad the picture can get if there is a ton of water in the air, and how bad digital magnification gets. These pictures were taken after hours of rain, very light mist in the air that was just enough that with the naked eye the trees behind the hawke were not clear, just a bit hazy.
In my previous post I mistyped, digital mag is 2,4, and 8x. I stupidly wrote 1,2,3. Effective magnification starts at base of 2.5, then 5x, 10x, and a completely useless 20x I have never taken a pic at, it is beyond bad and shouldn't even be an option.
Base mag(2.5 base mag):
2x digital(5x magnification)
4x digital(10x magnification)
The further away something is when you are all the way up to 4x digital magnification, the worse it looks. These pictures, besides the water in the air also reflect my contrast and brightness settings. I can make pictures look better, but I like the white hot to make critters jump out so that is the way my Trijicon stays set.
This is with a high end 640 sensor, if you had a 320-384 sensor you could do 2x digital mag, but 4x would be mostly worthless in most cases. Base mag is where it is at for a thermal scope if you want to use it at any distance. 2x digital works pretty well, more than that get's into the pure suck range. Clip on thermals with less than a 640 sensor that are not military optics are 100 yard tops at 4x opitcal mag with your daytime scope. Berring optics makes a fairly reasonable 640 clip on, but if you ever look through a military one you would likely never put up with it. Stick with a thermal scope with a good base mag, or spend real money on a clip-on. I've briefly used a voodoo-s and a voodoo-m. I would never pay the money for the -s (>15k) but if I had the money I'd jump on the voodoo-m in a heartbeat for a clip-on. No problems getting to 15x mag on day scope with it and if that hawk was about 400 yards the voodoo-m would look much better at 15x than the 2x digital(5x) pic of that hawk at 125ish yards looks, costs around 22k or so.
In my previous post I mistyped, digital mag is 2,4, and 8x. I stupidly wrote 1,2,3. Effective magnification starts at base of 2.5, then 5x, 10x, and a completely useless 20x I have never taken a pic at, it is beyond bad and shouldn't even be an option.
Base mag(2.5 base mag):
2x digital(5x magnification)
4x digital(10x magnification)
The further away something is when you are all the way up to 4x digital magnification, the worse it looks. These pictures, besides the water in the air also reflect my contrast and brightness settings. I can make pictures look better, but I like the white hot to make critters jump out so that is the way my Trijicon stays set.
This is with a high end 640 sensor, if you had a 320-384 sensor you could do 2x digital mag, but 4x would be mostly worthless in most cases. Base mag is where it is at for a thermal scope if you want to use it at any distance. 2x digital works pretty well, more than that get's into the pure suck range. Clip on thermals with less than a 640 sensor that are not military optics are 100 yard tops at 4x opitcal mag with your daytime scope. Berring optics makes a fairly reasonable 640 clip on, but if you ever look through a military one you would likely never put up with it. Stick with a thermal scope with a good base mag, or spend real money on a clip-on. I've briefly used a voodoo-s and a voodoo-m. I would never pay the money for the -s (>15k) but if I had the money I'd jump on the voodoo-m in a heartbeat for a clip-on. No problems getting to 15x mag on day scope with it and if that hawk was about 400 yards the voodoo-m would look much better at 15x than the 2x digital(5x) pic of that hawk at 125ish yards looks, costs around 22k or so.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Something to note for hunting with thermal. Thermal optics may have you shooting into thin brush or grass that is not visible by your unit. Here’s is where night vision holds an advantage to thermal optics. I’ve had several animals show up on thermal, then when I go to line up a shot there are all sorts of plants in the way that I didn’t see through the thermal optic. Not sure if this was a humidity issue or what, but it happened more than once. Dunno about the high-end stuff, but you may encounter this with entry level thermal optics under certain conditions.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I think the high-end also has this feature, or perhaps problem, depending on how you look at it.
If the heat signature isn't diminished much, there's likely only thin leaves and twigs between you and your target. If the target takes up significant MOA in your scope and the obstruction is close to the target, you'll often still make an effective kill. Of course, it depends on being familiar with the obstructions to have any confidence in this -- knowing there's nothing very solid in the way.
Upvote 0