Looking for thoughts....
Here's a link for the FLIR:
https://www.amazon.com/Thermal-Riflescope-Stabilization-Shooting-Solution/dp/B01FJDFG8S/ref=pd_sbs_200_6?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B01FJDFG8S&pd_rd_r=M6S3ZVT5JK0FCJATQE72&pd_rd_w=pJA3b&pd_rd_wg=TlQjz&refRID=M6S3ZVT5JK0FCJATQE72
Hogs or yotes at night, you will really like a thermal.
I prefer the IR to the IE...
IE are useless in rain or snow.
Dont waste your money on the X sight electronic night vision, as the poster above indicated, using your eye adaptation with a high aperture 56mm objective scope or larger will be much clearer a picture.
The Thermals are superior of course but expensive and do not work beyond 2-300 yards very well, especially not when the rain washes out all temperature to a uniform level.
Full disclosure. I bought an ATN off amazon 6 years ago and use IR illumination (love it). I used to be FLIR Level I thermographery certified (it’s a one week course :-) but very informative).
Couple of things to think about.
Purpose. If you’re a regular night hunter then you’ll need some type of night vision device.
Thermal is really nice (day and night use) but there are a couple of limiting factors: Resolution and re-calibration. The best thermal imager resolution I’ve utilized was 640x480. FLIR also recommends you have your imager re-calibrated annually (not cheap). You can’t put a scope in front of your thermal because it will reflect short and medium wavelengths (like looking in a mirror). Commercial thermal rifle scopes are designed to see longwave IR. It’s a cost issue. Short and medium wave imagers are very expensive.
Light intensifiers (night vision scopes) are nice. Especially if you don’t have a problem with adding IR illumination. Most of the commercial night vision scopes (like ATN) will work with 980 nano-meter (nm) illumination. This is nice because most critters (and people) cannot see wavelengths longer than 880nm. They can be used during daylight with the lens cap on (the cap has a pin hole allowing enough light in for utilization).
Thermal is nice... you see hogs resting that you may not see with a low light intensifier. The flip side is cost, maintenance and resolution.
If I had the bucks (pun intended), I’d have both. If I didn’t have the doe (sorry), I’d get an image intensifier.
Good luck and tell us how it turns out!
r
toad
Can you post your results once you purchase and use said device?
Thermal if you can afford it.
This depends upon what your ultimate goal happens to be. Gen 1-3 Night Vis is superb for situational awareness and traversing across various terrain types but IR excels at target acquisition. Further, you need to decide what type of IR you would need, if that is the route you choose. Passive IR is similar to Gen 1 NV. You can lose a lot of detail and both fail at distance. Gen 2/3 NV is nearly like dusk or dawn in SA and can make for tracking at night a breeze. Active IR illuminates your target and makes targeting child’s play but only at distances <100 meters and you lose terrain features.
I have used a variety of optics ranging from Gen 1,2, & 3 NV in the air and on the ground as well as put lots of rounds down range with IR. One of the most impressive was an active IR that displayed the target in degrees of red depending upon thermal signature. You could distinguish skeletal changes and looked almost like a video game.
My preference is Gen 3 NV but as an aviator I tend to want as much SA in my night patrols.