Thermal LRF

[Shootermick]

For those with both a thermal scope and a monocular, do you prefer the LRF on the scope or the monocular?

[niteowl]

Monocular !! But can be harder to "align" the splash / sight box by being hand held and not as steady.

[stihl88]

On the scope with ballistic calculator for shot placement/holdover onboard.

[scoot]

On the monocular. I prefer the scope to be less "frills" more function.

[cusco]

If you can afford it, both LRF on hand held and rifle scope. If only one my preference from nearly ten years of thermal hunting is on the rifle scope. The ballistic calculators are really great for those long shots. The main need to know the distance is when you take the shot. Handhelds are just for spotting. Anyway with practice it does get easier to judge distance. Use things like tree lines/fences/buildings etc that you can see with your eyesight to then compare with the thermal image. If in a open field with no structures, pan the hand held up down from just in front of you to the target a few times. Check how many rows of crop/stubble etc. This really helps in getting a "feel" for the distance. Hope this helps.

[Wapiti]

Never found a need for a LRF on a thermal, ever. Or regretted not using one before taking a shot.
If the target animal is in range, just observing it tells me that instantly.

Sounds like a lot of fun playing with those features. Maybe it's my experience and skill level being wanting, but targets causing me loss of income and stock losses don't hang about for me to fumble with buttons for range info and videos I won't use.

Actually I prefer simplicity and the less bulk that comes with not having features I can't use because I'm a troglodyte.
Am I the only one that feels that way?

[niteowl]

Never found a need for a LRF on a thermal, ever. Or regretted not using one before taking a shot.
If the target animal is in range, just observing it tells me that instantly.

Sounds like a lot of fun playing with those features. Maybe it's my experience and skill level being wanting, but targets causing me loss of income and stock losses don't hang about for me to fumble with buttons for range info and videos I won't use.

Actually I prefer simplicity and the less bulk that comes with not having features I can't use because I'm a troglodyte.
Am I the only one that feels that way?

Yep, can't agree more. I have been using thermal for about 13 years and feel the same. Get used to "seeing" your target and you will know if it is in range or not for your given cartridge!
I / we use them as contractors, mainly Govt. work.
As I said above, if you really want one, then monocular not firearm.
I do admit that when one model came out with the option from our suppliers, I did get one to evaluate.
Conclusion, would not bother, you don't need one, too much stuffing about.
Note while we sell all types (NOT BRANDS) of night vision. Thermal is king of the heap.

[Shootermick]

Never found a need for a LRF on a thermal, ever. Or regretted not using one before taking a shot.
If the target animal is in range, just observing it tells me that instantly.

Sounds like a lot of fun playing with those features. Maybe it's my experience and skill level being wanting, but targets causing me loss of income and stock losses don't hang about for me to fumble with buttons for range info and videos I won't use.

Actually I prefer simplicity and the less bulk that comes with not having features I can't use because I'm a troglodyte.
Am I the only one that feels that way?

Yep, can't agree more. I have been using thermal for about 13 years and feel the same. Get used to "seeing" your target and you will know if it is in range or not for your given cartridge!
I / we use them as contractors, mainly Govt. work.
As I said above, if you really want one, then monocular not firearm.
I do admit that when one model came out with the option from our suppliers, I did get one to evaluate.
Conclusion, would not bother, you don't need one, too much stuffing about.
Note while we sell all types (NOT BRANDS) of night vision. Thermal is king of the heap.

Well I’ve just sold my LRF thermal and have a new non LRF thermal on the way. No LRF on my monocular so I’ll see how I go.
I mainly shoot on my own farm, so I know the paddocks pretty well, even in the dark, with landmarks giving me few clues here and there.
I did use my LRF on the old scope, but not all the time, sometimes just out of interest, hopefully I won’t miss having one.

[scoot]

As said above, there's enough things to worry about when taking a shot. Faffing about with extra buttons and features seems an unwanted distraction from the business at hand.

[Wyliecoyote]

Each to their own but i see LRF combined with a ballistic solution as a must for what i want to do. In the early days i went for fast and flat calibers to make up for grey out nights where range is near impossible to estimate. Worked to a point but there were misses. Now i have gone opposite, slower calibers with heavier harder hitting bullets in 7/08 and a ballistic solution that i spent some time confirming the 130 Speers to 600 metres and with the 162 Amaxes to 800 metres. Not sure where or how two taps on the button to get an aim point for a shot at longer range posed such a problem but like i said each to their own. The further out they are the more time i have so i personally see it as a bonus of not having to get within a point blank range like we all once did. Spot, double tap, wind up magnification (RH50R has an external manification lever all the way to a very usable but narrow FOV 24x like a day scope has), aim, shoot, drive CanAm to carcass. Move on. Watch recoil activated video next morning on a tablet. On a decent screen you can see the heat spot of the bullet impact and often the bullets glowing base in flight. Maybe not for everyone all this tech advancement and all the settings needed to get there, but a lot like myself do use it.

[Blr243]

Coyote , it sounds like you are very tuned in to the capabilities of your equipment. That’s a good thing. Sounds like it working very well for you. I will explore that technology and lrf and auto trajectory scopes one day if I get into shooting foxes at a distance but at the moment I’m sneaking up in the dark and 30 metres max with the shotgun. But not everyone stays the same forever. Who knows what I might get up to down the track.

[Bello]

If you can afford it, both LRF on hand held and rifle scope. If only one my preference from nearly ten years of thermal hunting is on the rifle scope. The ballistic calculators are really great for those long shots. The main need to know the distance is when you take the shot. Handhelds are just for spotting. Anyway with practice it does get easier to judge distance. Use things like tree lines/fences/buildings etc that you can see with your eyesight to then compare with the thermal image. If in a open field with no structures, pan the hand held up down from just in front of you to the target a few times. Check how many rows of crop/stubble etc. This really helps in getting a "feel" for the distance. Hope this helps.

I have LRF on both Monocular and scope.
In the dark it can be hard to judge distance, the LRF fixes that issue.
When calling in foxes, I can track their distance and watch till they get close enough, before I take the shot.
I tend to use the monocular more when in the field. Its lighter, more maneuverable, I have 3 batteries for it.
I use the scope to then get a better view as it gives clearer definition and is usually supported in the Vehicle or on a tripod.
my 2c