Best nightvision under $200?

[CentralTexas]

I see the Bushnell handheld monoculars for $150 used- any good or any better for cheap?

 

[Chris Rhines]

Under two hundred dollars? Spend your money on something else. I've tried many different NODs, and there ain't one worth having that runs less than two grand.

One possible exception - I've never used any of the newer digital night vision equipment. I have no idea how good it is, nor how much a good set would cost.

- Chris

 

[CWAdams]

Greetin's.
I have a Bushnell NV bino, and Chris is right -- save your money. I later got a Weaver Nightview digital (right at $200 at Sportsmans Guide), and it is nigh on to wunnerful! Very clear, gentle on batteries, and has video output for recording, or showing on the screen of a personal DVD player.

 

[CentralTexas]

Thanks guys!

Love this place!
CT

 

[DougCxx]

The 1X gen-1's are the brightest and clearest, and have the widest depth of field so get as close to 1X power as you can. Most use a visible-red jumbo LED for illumination, so you are not "invisible". You can change this to an IR LED yourself but that will not show as brightly as the red LED does. Gen-1 NV's usually need some illumination to be any use at all, unless the sky is clear and the moon is about 1/2 full or more.

Overall, sometimes gen-1's can work pretty well, but other times they are useless.
Some of the cheaper ones use very-poor quality tubes and optics, and are always useless.

Gen-2's work way better, but then a decent new gen-2 will cost you $1200 or so, $1500 with a head-mount.
~

 

[BeLikeTrey]

Cw

I haven't seen you on before. So Howdy! good to see a Flo town guy around here. I'll look that one up that you mentioned. I am looking for a good NV setup. thanks!

 

[det.pat]

nvd

be careful of foreign units, many russian gen 1's are actually a radiation hazard. [to the operator's eyes]
pat

 

[DougCxx]

...be careful of foreign units, many russian gen 1's are actually a radiation hazard...

-Well, not really. The number of US-bound units rejected for high radiation is a very small percentage (something like 130 total scopes since 1996), and many of these were rejected just for having IR-laser illuminators. And most people only occasionally will use an NV scope anyway; in practical terms the risk of a health hazard from gen-1 NV radiation is very small.

Image-wise, the tube NV's amplify light a bit better while the digital ones are clearer, but both usually need additional illumination.
Also the digital ones can't be head-mounted because of the LCD screen displays they use, and a 1X head-mount scope is way more useful than a hand-held one. With a head-mounted unit you can walk around and scan a wide area easily. You can't do that nearly as well if the scope is hand-held and magnifies, or if it's mounted on top of a gun.

The main argument against buying either of them is that they don't really work that well. People buy them and expect them to work like the CNN war footage they see on TV, and that ain't gen-1's----what you see on CNN is gen-2's and 3's.
~