IR scopes in 2022

[DaveZ]

Just looking at options currently available for an IR scope, mostly will be used for chasing a few bunnies on the 22lr, but may get used on a centrefire at some point. I was keen on the PARD NV008 but supply of those seems to have dried up, not sure if it's just supply issues or if PARD is getting ready to release a new model.

One store has an Owl-NV that looks a lot like the PARD, so may be very similar, anybody used one? The other available option is the Sightmark Wraith HD for around $1K. ATN get some pretty poor user reviews so I'd probably like to stay away from them. Budget is around the $1k mark, may be a bit more. Any suggestions?

I know all the pro-thermal arguments, but I don't even hunt all that much so spending $6k+ is never going to fly on something that may or may not get used all that much. If I enjoy it and start dedicating more time to night hunting, then it's justifiable, but not for now.

Cheers,
Dave.

[bladeracer]

Just looking at options currently available for an IR scope, mostly will be used for chasing a few bunnies on the 22lr, but may get used on a centrefire at some point. I was keen on the PARD NV008 but supply of those seems to have dried up, not sure if it's just supply issues or if PARD is getting ready to release a new model.

One store has an Owl-NV that looks a lot like the PARD, so may be very similar, anybody used one? The other available option is the Sightmark Wraith HD for around $1K. ATN get some pretty poor user reviews so I'd probably like to stay away from them. Budget is around the $1k mark, may be a bit more. Any suggestions?

I know all the pro-thermal arguments, but I don't even hunt all that much so spending $6k+ is never going to fly on something that may or may not get used all that much. If I enjoy it and start dedicating more time to night hunting, then it's justifiable, but not for now.

Cheers,
Dave.

I recommend seeing if you can use one first. I find IR absolutely useless except in very specific situations. If you've got a carcass down in a paddock and you know foxes and dogs are feeding on it you can watch the spot with IR, or just set up a light over it and don't worry about IR. But to actually move around trying to hunt at night with an IR camera destroying your night vision is no fun at all for me.

[niteowl]

I see a bit of a commonly incorrectly used term. IR devices are thermal, they use, detect nothing but IR (Heat, which is IR). Take FLIR, Forward Looking Infrared. Other devices like Image Intensifying and digital can and do use various wavelengths of IR as "extra light" but do not actually need it, but are commonly incorrectly called IR devices.
Not meaning to be a pain but I believe we need to be aware of the correct description.
I can't suggest anything for you though, I won't use it at all.

[bladeracer]

I see a bit of a commonly incorrectly used term. IR devices are thermal, they use, detect nothing but IR (Heat, which is IR). Take FLIR, Forward Looking Infrared. Other devices like Image Intensifying and digital can and do use various wavelengths of IR as "extra light" but do not actually need it, but are commonly incorrectly called IR devices.
Not meaning to be a pain but I believe we need to be aware of the correct description.
I can't suggest anything for you though, I won't use it at all.

I find all digital optics have the same drawback, staring into a screen destroys your night vision so you need light to be able to move around anyway. Only useful if you know where your target is going to be so you can get into position first, then start scanning without having to walk around in the dark. Probably not relevant to people that shoot from vehicles.

[Wyliecoyote]

For the price of a good digital NV unit and a torch upgrade you can buy a Night Tech MS30 at current clearance price of just under 2K. You will never regret it.

I have used many NV units right up to mil spec Gen 3. None of them have the capability of a basic thermal like the MS30. I have one that is solely used as a monocular as it is tiny once removed from its rail. The thermals i use on my rifles are expensive, some very expensive and i fully understand the reluctance to spend that sort of money. But I would never ever use or recommend any NV again. Put simply, once a shooter sees a heat signature through a thermal compared to a green or black and white screen image, they end up buying a thermal.

Just to add. Gen 1, 2 and 3 devices have some form of in built light gain where they basically intensify existing light, seen or unseen frequensies by human eye. All benefit from low level IR or Laser torches. Digital NV has no in built light gain at all so on a cloudy moonless night they are useless without help from some sort of light or low level IR light source. What Gen1, 2 , 3 or digital actually see is reflected Laser, IR or light like starlight, moonlight or even sunlight. None of these devices can see heat signature, upper level IR, like that of a rock that has been baking in the sun all day or a hog standing 20 feet in front of the unit.

Thermal on the other hand only sees an emitted IR source only, or the absence of it. This emitted IR is of the upper level, or as we know it, heat. It should be noted that a thermal sight cannot see low level IR, Laser or sunlight.
So NV as described is not or could ever be classed as a thermal sight as we know them. They can only see a wider frequency of reflected light.

[DaveZ]

I see a bit of a commonly incorrectly used term. IR devices are thermal, they use, detect nothing but IR (Heat, which is IR). Take FLIR, Forward Looking Infrared. Other devices like Image Intensifying and digital can and do use various wavelengths of IR as "extra light" but do not actually need it, but are commonly incorrectly called IR devices.
Not meaning to be a pain but I believe we need to be aware of the correct description.
I can't suggest anything for you though, I won't use it at all.

I take your point, but most digital NV scopes seem to rely on IR emitters to achieve their images so I guess that's where it comes from. Thermal imagining gear is generally called thermal, not IR, so right or wrong, everyone generally knows what one is talking about.

I have no doubt that the more expensive gear is worth it, but there seems to be quite a lot of people happily using digital NV gear so it must have some use/value. For busting a few bunnies in the backyard, thousands of dollars worth of thermal gear is never going to represent any sort of value.

[niteowl]

Wylie your explanations are pretty well on the mark. Yes Image intensifying does intensify light, Gen 1, 900 -1000 times, Gen 2, 20000 - 25000 times and Gen 3 50000 - 70000 + times, Exception, Photonis (Gen 2) has higher specs of 30000 - 50000 times, but not as high as the top spec Gen 3, but all have drawbacks compared to thermal.
Image intensifying does sense visible and IR. Generally out to around 850 nano-meters, some can use covert IR of 940 nano-meter. Again Photonis is an exception, 4G (Not Gen 4) will go longer.
Thermal used for other than gas sensing, only works in 8000 - 14000 nano-meters, long wave IR.
Yes NV is certainly not thermal.
How expensive is the thermal you use? Some of ours is true military with the appropriate price tag Although the new spec professional gear gets close with a bit smaller price these days.

Blade, In my view any digital is a waste on a number of points, too long to go into here though.

All interesting though.

[bladeracer]

Blade, In my view any digital is a waste on a number of points, too long to go into here though.

All interesting though.

Are there any thermal optics that aren't digital nowadays?

[DaveZ]

Blade, In my view any digital is a waste on a number of points, too long to go into here though.

All interesting though.

Are there any thermal optics that aren't digital nowadays?

So what would you use for night vision scopes if not digital? As that wipes out just about everything on the market.

[niteowl]

First of all, Dave, my post was not to offend anyone, as you say the common usage re an IR device is like you say. The problem is that over time it becomes the normal description and this in turn will create a problem.
There is not much option for a really workable device other than thermal and all its inherent costs. The next comment will rekindle some arguments. The problem with digital is that as mentioned by Wylie, digital does not enhance any light, it needs additional light eg IR to work in real darkness.. Now here it comes, nocturnal animals can see IR light as well as the visible red, sometimes intense red, from the illuminating device, regardless of what the internet experts claim.There are people on here that ridicule the statement, but it can be found in scientific documents if they bothered to look. In time it will cause a problem just like the old days when we used a spotlight. It worked for a time until we feel that all our "targets" have gone or are too wary. Then when we go to digital they are still about and everybody is happy until the same occurs.
Now back to thermal, yes without doubt it is expensive and digital may give you something to go on with for a while but it is a cost that cannot be recovered later.
I have been through the process and tried digital, including military digital recently and will never go back to it, as well as military Gen 3 which has its place at times but has too many drawbacks for most uses.
Don't take my comments as a directive, but just an explanation of what it is all about, you must make your own decisions from what is suggested by everyone.

Blade, not quite sure about your question, "are there any thermal optics that are not digital nowadays?" If you look at the processing within a thermal device I guess you can say there is digital in the system, there certainly is when using "zoom".
When referring to digital we should only refer to the sensor and not any inbuilt software / firmware within the device. A digital sensor will operate in full daylight and into the night as long as there is some light, all as been mentioned above by others, no problem there. Whereas you are aware thermal will do the same day or night.

[bladeracer]

Blade, In my view any digital is a waste on a number of points, too long to go into here though.

All interesting though.

Are there any thermal optics that aren't digital nowadays?

So what would you use for night vision scopes if not digital? As that wipes out just about everything on the market.

That's why I don't use them for shooting, the requirement to be staring into a screen destroys my night vision completely.

I have low-level NV viewers but have found them useless for that reason. Stumbling around in pitch darkness isn't much fun at all. When we lost a calf and found foxes feeding on it, I strung a cheap solar intruder light in a tree and let them get used to it. Then I dropped a fox under it using a conventional scope, no IR, no spotlight.

[bladeracer]

First of all, Dave, my post was not to offend anyone, as you say the common usage re an IR device is like you say. The problem is that over time it becomes the normal description and this in turn will create a problem.
There is not much option for a really workable device other than thermal and all its inherent costs. The next comment will rekindle some arguments. The problem with digital is that as mentioned by Wylie, digital does not enhance any light, it needs additional light eg IR to work in real darkness.. Now here it comes, nocturnal animals can see IR light as well as the visible red, sometimes intense red, from the illuminating device, regardless of what the internet experts claim.There are people on here that ridicule the statement, but it can be found in scientific documents if they bothered to look. In time it will cause a problem just like the old days when we used a spotlight. It worked for a time until we feel that all our "targets" have gone or are too wary. Then when we go to digital they are still about and everybody is happy until the same occurs.
Now back to thermal, yes without doubt it is expensive and digital may give you something to go on with for a while but it is a cost that cannot be recovered later.
I have been through the process and tried digital, including military digital recently and will never go back to it, as well as military Gen 3 which has its place at times but has too many drawbacks for most uses.
Don't take my comments as a directive, but just an explanation of what it is all about, you must make your own decisions from what is suggested by everyone.

Blade, not quite sure about your question, "are there any thermal optics that are not digital nowadays?" If you look at the processing within a thermal device I guess you can say there is digital in the system, there certainly is when using "zoom".
When referring to digital we should only refer to the sensor and not any inbuilt software / firmware within the device. A digital sensor will operate in full daylight and into the night as long as there is some light, all as been mentioned above by others, no problem there. Whereas you are aware thermal will do the same day or night.

I did spend a few hundred dollars on a very powerful IR torch, which makes the NV work better and extends it's viewing distance.
But it still requires me to blind myself looking at the screen while scanning for foxes. I prefer to hunt them in daylight.

[scoot]

I bought an owl 940nn non lrf a little while ago. Is it as good as thermal.... hell no, but I'm only comparing it against a +10k unit. Not at all comparable.
Very comparable to a pard (near identical). I believe the problems with getting pards is the now sole distribution and subsequent doubling in price. Any reviews, etc for them basically applies to the owl also. ATN I would avoid, Pulsars more expensive and the one I've used didn't really bring anything more to the table.
For sub 100m it works fine. On a .22 shooting rabbits it will be fine. Detection is harder being esentially black and white so it works similar to spotlighting where eyeshine is what you'll first spot scanning.
Pros...price....size....daytime & night-time...recording
No it's not thermal but for what they cost I think they're actually pretty good value if you occasionally shoot a few rabbit with the .22
Worst case it doesn't float your boat. Might loose a couple hundy to move it on. Best case you love it.
Oh and non-digital image intensifying nv has limited options for availability and starts to cost thermal money anyway. Don't think it's daytime usable either.

[DaveZ]

First of all, Dave, my post was not to offend anyone, as you say the common usage re an IR device is like you say. The problem is that over time it becomes the normal description and this in turn will create a problem..

No offence taken, I get what you're saying. I guess the confusion really does come from the fact that they all use IR emitters to boost the image, rather than referring to what the unit actually does.

True thermal is never going to be an option for me at this point as I simply don't shoot enough to justify the outlay. I have had situations where I believe some kind of NV scope would be an advantage, rabbits in the back yard, foxes sniffing around the chook pens, dogs roaming through our place. Most shooting would be from pretty fixed locations so I don't think the night vision thing would be an issue for me. We've caught a lot of these critters on game cams that use IR illumination and they don't seem to be spooked by that, but are skittish to spotlights, so I think IR illumination would still offer me an advantage. Thanks for the input, appreciate it.

[DaveZ]

That's why I don't use them for shooting, the requirement to be staring into a screen destroys my night vision completely.

I have low-level NV viewers but have found them useless for that reason. Stumbling around in pitch darkness isn't much fun at all. When we lost a calf and found foxes feeding on it, I strung a cheap solar intruder light in a tree and let them get used to it. Then I dropped a fox under it using a conventional scope, no IR, no spotlight.

That's an option I hadn't considered. I know foxes here spook easily with spotlights but a continuous light might be different. Thanks for the input.

[DaveZ]

I bought an owl 940nn non lrf a little while ago. Is it as good as thermal.... hell no, but I'm only comparing it against a +10k unit. Not at all comparable.
Very comparable to a pard (near identical). I believe the problems with getting pards is the now sole distribution and subsequent doubling in price. Any reviews, etc for them basically applies to the owl also. ATN I would avoid, Pulsars more expensive and the one I've used didn't really bring anything more to the table.
For sub 100m it works fine. On a .22 shooting rabbits it will be fine. Detection is harder being esentially black and white so it works similar to spotlighting where eyeshine is what you'll first spot scanning.
Pros...price....size....daytime & night-time...recording
No it's not thermal but for what they cost I think they're actually pretty good value if you occasionally shoot a few rabbit with the .22
Worst case it doesn't float your boat. Might loose a couple hundy to move it on. Best case you love it.
Oh and non-digital image intensifying nv has limited options for availability and starts to cost thermal money anyway. Don't think it's daytime usable either.

Thank you. That's pretty much what I'm thinking. Good to hear a user review of the Owl units. Cheers.

[Blr243]

Prior to thermal I tried two different nv scopes and I noticed definite reactions from animals being aware of it

[scoot]

One thing to note if you get an owl/pard/sytong whatever. It's possible you may want an adjustable windage/elevation mount. Makes dialing easy for loopy subsonic trajectories and saves having to dick around with shims if your fussy about having the reticle centred on the screen.
I'm going to get a new version of the mount bladeracer has a thread on. Made to mount direct to pard scopes (no stacking adaptors, etc) . About $200 when I was looking but I couldn't find them in Aus. Yet. International shipping is still ******.

[Larry]

When BR says arnt they all Digital anyway? I tend to agree as what I think is being talked about is the display which is a digital device unlike a glass lens that just modifies natural or unnatural light straight to your eyes.

[scoot]

ZB lite pro "universal" is the mount. Same as old zb lite pro but it has the groove machined down its guts and screw holes to bolt the nv scope direct to it. Eliminates one link in the chain instead of picatinny rail on rifle, zb mount onto picatinny, factory scope mount on zb mount, scope onto factory scope mount. Should save an inch of unnecessary height.

[Fionn]

Now here it comes, nocturnal animals can see IR light as well as the visible red, sometimes intense red, from the illuminating device, regardless of what the internet experts claim.There are people on here that ridicule the statement, but it can be found in scientific documents if they bothered to look.

You are ridiculed because its scientific fact that most animals can't detect IR light except for mosquitoes, vampire bats, bed bugs, and some snake and beetle species and some fish.

The fact that you keep spouting such ill informed nonsense just destroys your credibility on the topic as a whole which is sad.

But please post any credible scientific documents (I think you mean studies or research papers) that show that nocturnal animals can see IR light.

I won't even hold you to statement "as well as the visible red" just see IR light at all will be fine.

[Fionn]

. I was keen on the PARD NV008 but supply of those seems to have dried up, not sure if it's just supply issues or if PARD is getting ready to release a new model. .

Just FYI, but there is a new PARD out called PARD 008S LRF, although at this stage you will have get it from overseas.

https://www.pard-tech.com/PARD-NV008S-digital-night-vision-rifle-scope-2K-1200m-rangefinder-red-dot-hunting-optics-sight-en

[DaveZ]

Just FYI, but there is a new PARD out called PARD 008S LRF, although at this stage you will have get it from overseas.

https://www.pard-tech.com/PARD-NV008S-digital-night-vision-rifle-scope-2K-1200m-rangefinder-red-dot-hunting-optics-sight-en

Thanks. Looks like it might be a good thing. $1kUS might be nearly 2k by the time it gets here. Another option though.

[Fionn]

$950ish AUD from here

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005004000519652.html?spm=a2g0o.productlist.0.0.1cd72330Sen96q&algo_pvid=4e393d9c-51ff-4d98-9aea-03639a67cf7a&algo_exp_id=4e393d9c-51ff-4d98-9aea-03639a67cf7a-0&pdp_ext_f=%7B%22sku_id%22%3A%2212000027697775024%22%7D&pdp_pi=-1%3B951.34%3B-1%3B-1%40salePrice%3BAUD%3Bsearch-mainSearch

It also has inbuilt Ballistic Calculation if that floats your boat.

Here a review of sorts as this has just only been released.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS0_RdK-jes&t=561s

[DaveZ]

Thanks Fionn. I've never used aliexpress before, they look dodgey as I'll look I to them. The scope looks good for the price.

[Fionn]

They aren't dodgy, well not anymore than eBay or Amazon are. I have bought plenty of things including expensive phones and haven't had any issues.

Just beware that like any overseas purchase you will have to deal with them overseas for warranty issues. So instead of paying $2k AUD for a product with local warranty (whatever that is worth) you are getting it for half the price with a caveat that warranty issues may take longer to resolve.

On the plus side the actual people selling this item is PARD, so you are buying from the manufacturer instead of a reseller like buying it locally (not that you can at this time anyway)

[DaveZ]

They aren't dodgy, well not anymore than eBay or Amazon are. I have bought plenty of things including expensive phones and haven't had any issues.

Just beware that like any overseas purchase you will have to deal with them overseas for warranty issues. So instead of paying $2k AUD for a product with local warranty (whatever that is worth) you are getting it for half the price with a caveat that warranty issues may take longer to resolve.

On the plus side the actual people selling this item is PARD, so you are buying from the manufacturer instead of a reseller like buying it locally (not that you can at this time anyway)

Appreciate the info. Thanks.

[Tilb004]

Just looking at options currently available for an IR scope, mostly will be used for chasing a few bunnies on the 22lr, but may get used on a centrefire at some point. I was keen on the PARD NV008 but supply of those seems to have dried up, not sure if it's just supply issues or if PARD is getting ready to release a new model.

One store has an Owl-NV that looks a lot like the PARD, so may be very similar, anybody used one? The other available option is the Sightmark Wraith HD for around $1K. ATN get some pretty poor user reviews so I'd probably like to stay away from them. Budget is around the $1k mark, may be a bit more. Any suggestions?

I know all the pro-thermal arguments, but I don't even hunt all that much so spending $6k+ is never going to fly on something that may or may not get used all that much. If I enjoy it and start dedicating more time to night hunting, then it's justifiable, but not for now.

Cheers,
Dave.

Hi Dave

I had a pard 008 and shot a few foxes with it also have a 007 clip on .
I sold the 008 and kept the clip on , i think they are brilliant for the price .
You can swap from one scope to another no probs .Also got a better ir light that can see out to 300 m no worries .
I have a pulsar trail and its great but you cant see if you shooting a fox or a dog that looks similar .
I shoot on fairly small acreage and dont want to shoot neighbours dogs accidently.
I ended up buying a thermal range finder to spot and use the nv for shooting .
If your not going to do that much night stuff the clip ons are a great cheap option .
I heard the wraiths are great to .
I'm going to get the new pard 007s when i can get my hands on one ,out of stock every where.

Its hard to find the right combo that suits you ,unfortunately you have to buy and try.
If you can borrow someones that will get you a better idea.

best of luck .

[DaveZ]

Hi Dave

I had a pard 008 and shot a few foxes with it also have a 007 clip on .
I sold the 008 and kept the clip on , i think they are brilliant for the price .
You can swap from one scope to another no probs .Also got a better ir light that can see out to 300 m no worries .
I have a pulsar trail and its great but you cant see if you shooting a fox or a dog that looks similar .
I shoot on fairly small acreage and dont want to shoot neighbours dogs accidently.
I ended up buying a thermal range finder to spot and use the nv for shooting .
If your not going to do that much night stuff the clip ons are a great cheap option .
I heard the wraiths are great to .
I'm going to get the new pard 007s when i can get my hands on one ,out of stock every where.

Its hard to find the right combo that suits you ,unfortunately you have to buy and try.
If you can borrow someones that will get you a better idea.

best of luck .

Thanks for the insight. It's one of those things where the more you look at the options, the more indecisive you become. Every $500 step up gains you in features. I'm still undecided, but at the moment I'm leaning towards saving for a bit longer, getting a half decent thermal monocular and just shoot with my scope mounted light.

The issue with me getting something like the Pard 007 is that my scopes don't have paralax adjustment, which seems to be essential for getting the best out of the clip ons, so I'd be up for a couple of new scopes as well.

The deliberation continues

[Tilb004]

Hi Dave

I had a pard 008 and shot a few foxes with it also have a 007 clip on .
I sold the 008 and kept the clip on , i think they are brilliant for the price .
You can swap from one scope to another no probs .Also got a better ir light that can see out to 300 m no worries .
I have a pulsar trail and its great but you cant see if you shooting a fox or a dog that looks similar .
I shoot on fairly small acreage and dont want to shoot neighbours dogs accidently.
I ended up buying a thermal range finder to spot and use the nv for shooting .
If your not going to do that much night stuff the clip ons are a great cheap option .
I heard the wraiths are great to .
I'm going to get the new pard 007s when i can get my hands on one ,out of stock every where.

Its hard to find the right combo that suits you ,unfortunately you have to buy and try.
If you can borrow someones that will get you a better idea.

best of luck .

Thanks for the insight. It's one of those things where the more you look at the options, the more indecisive you become. Every $500 step up gains you in features. I'm still undecided, but at the moment I'm leaning towards saving for a bit longer, getting a half decent thermal monocular and just shoot with my scope mounted light.

The issue with me getting something like the Pard 007 is that my scopes don't have paralax adjustment, which seems to be essential for getting the best out of the clip ons, so I'd be up for a couple of new scopes as well.

The deliberation continues

No worries Dave

All the best