Digital Night Vision accuracy

[Flintknapper]

OK guys....help me out here.

I am in a quandary of sorts.

I have a new CZ 455 Varmint rifle in 17 HMR that I purchased for general 'small' varmint control, but in particular... to snipe a few raccoon's from around feeders at night.

I have a couple of dedicated 'hog stands' (bait sites with feeders, hog lights, elevated stands)...but the Coons are killing me. Eventually they learn NOT to go into the live traps I have set for them and the foot-hold traps require checking every day.

So, I thought I'd just snipe some of them each time I am out hog hunting.

So...here is my question: Are Digital Night Vision Scopes capable of minute of angle accuracy at 100 yds (or just beyond)? Do they hold zero?

I need to be able to make precise head-shots, not just general 'hits'.

I don't have any firsthand experience with Digital, so I don't know if there are any inherent problems with them.

I know I can get good accuracy (repeatedly) from a conventional scope.

If it makes any difference, I am looking at a Sightmark Photon 4.6 Digital with a 'doubler' (effectively making it 8 X) and an external IR illuminator.

For a normal scope, I am considering a Vortex Viper PST 2.5 x 10 x 44mm with illuminated reticle.

Suggestions or Concerns?

Thank You in advance,

Flint.

 

[taliv]

dunno, curious to hear others responses as well. my guess is the accuracy is fine, but with a good illuminator the target will be a little hard to see at 100 yards, so you'll wind up aiming for the kind of dark spot moving around.

 

[Stony]

I use a Sightmark regularly for night time hogs and it works well, but making head shots on coons @ 100 yds would be pretty tough with one. I can hold about a 3 moa at night with it, but proabably not sufficient for reliable head shots on a coon. I also use lights around feeders and shoot from 70 to 100 yds., depending on which feeder I am hunting that night. Lately I have been using a Leupold 3x9 with a Firedot and really like it. You can turn down the dot until it is just barely visible..and that's what you need to control the glare on a real dark night. I mounted it on a Ruger scout rifle using the conventional rings mounted to the receiver...instead of the scout rail.
Using the lights around a feeder, it's a good alternative to a night scope.

 

[Txhillbilly]

The Pulsar 750 works pretty well,and the ATN X-Sight will be an excellent choice as soon as they work out their software problems.
If Pulsar would get the image clarity as clear as the ATN X-sight,it would be an excellent choice since it has an external battery pack that can extend it's use time.

I also use lights around my feeders,but I have gone to using solar powered spotlights.They come on when it gets dark,and stay on all night long.The animals get use to them being on,and come right into the feeders.

 

[OpticsPlanet]

I am not a fan of digital night vision, especially the ATN X-Sight.

The best value for an affordable night vision scope is the Armasight Vampire:

http://www.opticsplanet.com/armasight-vampire-3x-night-vision-rifle-scope-3x-core-iit-60-70-lp-mm.html



The Vampire uses a ceramic tube and is very close in function to a Gen 2 scope. There is very little distortion or "fish eye effect" with this unit unlike other Gen 1.

The only reason to go with digital over image intensifier tube nightvision is if you are going to be hunting in an area with a lot of light, as light damages the nightvision tube.

Tim G.

 

[taliv]

i haven't got to use their product much, other than the demo at the sniperhide cup last year, but the armasight guys i've met were pretty cool.

 

[Radagast]

Pulsar 750/770, Armasight Drone Pro are top of the range. The Yukon/Sightmark Photon is good for rimfire distances. All require use of an IR torch. The Pulsar and Photon become more usable with an optical doubler, but holding zero can then be an issue.
The ATN X Sight is using the first owners as beta testers, with regular firmware updates as issues are resolved. Don't buy one yet.

THR members DFWroadkill & Bennybone have vids for the above on Youtube.

There is also two years worth of testing and discussion at the UK Night Vision Forum.
The following is a test of the Pulsar, Photon & Drone Pro by one of the UKNVF members. Each is now last years model, there have been upgrades to each:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzv1NaDfsTw

 

[Radagast]

Bennybone's channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmFHaQ44gPugYdGD8uOiRaw

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I own both the N750 and Photon XT and have no issues with accuracy or holding zero. With a T20 illuminator, 200 yards for hog hunting isn't bad for either scope. HOWEVER, and this is salient, hunting the treed country that you hunt, flint, may cause you some issues with reflectivity. You get the same effect if you have ever looked for your pet in the bushes by shining a flashlight on the bushes at night. You see the bushes, but not the pet inside because so much of the light is reflected back at you by the bushes. The same thing happens with IR light and digital scopes.

For example, this videos show reflected light issues off of vegetation (including use of the older N550 by Pulsar) and from cartridge smoke/particulates.

Trees or other vegetation issues. Being on the ground can make it much worse...
http://youtu.be/Zy1LBsRyHGg
http://youtu.be/wFnaAxuPHPo

This is a particularly long video that shows my stalk to a sounder and every time I tried to take a knee to get a steady shot, the grass in the field was so high as to reflect too much light and make the shot difficult or impossible...
http://youtu.be/n0uOLjAU244

This is a summary video from 2014 and show several shots that include smoke whiteout caused by the reflected IR light on calm nights. In some cases it is only a brief flash, but in others, it left me blinded for a couple of seconds at a time.
http://youtu.be/hRNQdBazWtw

I don't have any vids from the Photon XT because I have not hunted with it much and have yet to shoot anything with it.

 

[MachIVshooter]

No experience with the digitals yet, but I do know trying to achieve MOA with the affordable intensifier scopes, both 1+ and 2, is a tall order. I think the biggest issue is the illuminated reticles; seems like no matter the setting you have it on, it's either bright enough to wash out the target, or too dim to see well against the back drop. And I don't mean that these conditions are to a degree that the scopes are unusable; far from it. I just mean those issues will make it very difficult to achieve the kind of accuracy you can easily manage with a day scope during the day.

 

[Radagast]

DFWroadkills vids, mainly about the X Sight.
https://www.youtube.com/user/dfwroadkill/videos

Re: the Vampire recommended by Optics Planet, the only 'in the field' video on Youtube is by Skippy, a mod on an Australian forum. He has taken 50 foxes with it in the last year and is very happy. In the vid he is using a Nightmaster NM800, a long throw IR torch, which explains why it has apparent Gen 3 brightness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ48h1lRvp0

 

[OpticsPlanet]

The X-Sight is not in the same class as the Vampire, ATN even stated the X-Sight as "a day scope first and then a night vision scope".

Tim G.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The X-Sight is not in the same class as the Vampire, ATN even stated the X-Sight as "a day scope first and then a night vision scope".

They aren't in the same class. That is true. The Vampire would be useless during the daytime and you can (sort of) use the X-sight at night. The X-Sight does record video and take stills of what you are seeing. The Vampire doesn't. The X-sight has apps to slice, dice, and make Julienne fries (basically garbage apps 99% of us don't need and won't use) and the Vampire doesn't. So the X-sight is a day/night scope and the Vampire will burn up the sensor during day use, like vampires.

Both really do need IR help most of the time at night. Almost Gen II really isn't that good except on a bright night. So they are both hamstrung there.

The funny thing about the X-sight is that initially it was billed as a NV scope that could work in the day time until ATN ran into the huge number of firmware problems and realized that their IR source really make the X-sight a bit near-sighted at night.

 

[Flintknapper]

DNS, as you know... my hunting conditions vary from having coons right under a feeder (bare ground) to being half hidden in the brush and bramble we have here in Deep East Texas, so from what you have posted....it might cause real problems for me.

I am going to hold off on Digital for now, until I can learn a bit more about it. I might be trying to do something with it...that simply isn't ideal.

I went ahead and ordered the Vortex, will see how that works out.

I would like to thank everyone for their input...it has been most helpful.

Flint.

 

[Radagast]

Flintknapper:
It's possible to build a home made digital NV that fits on the back of your day scope. These are fairly common in the UK, a measured 294 meters for a kill on a fox is the current record. The issue is having time and an interest in tinkering and your day scope must have adjustable parallax as lenses focused for visible light react differently to IR. I've used one on bunnies on my .17hmr CZ 452 with a Bushnell Legend scope. It's a workable system and as accurate as your rifle and day scope. Rolaids Bench on Youtube is a good starting point.
https://www.youtube.com/user/RolaidsBench/videos

There is a good commercial system, the Ward D Vision out of the UK by NVscopes.com
The only issue is the proprietor has a bad rep where communication is concerned. I would be hesitant to make an international order.

 

[GAMEOVER44]

That sounds and looks like one hell of a scope!!!!

 

[Bennybone]

DoubleNaughtSpy gave the best rundown in this thread backed by facts and video and Radagst certainly has a good feel on the pulse of digital Nv

I posted for you to try a behind the scope digital unit in the other forum because you can use a day scopes accuracy along with a strong IR, it wouldn't be optimal in all hunting scenarios like standalone units but keeping core to your question it'd be a good choice.

TimG must have a lot of Vampires to sell...

His statement that the ONLY reason to hunt with digital is if you have a lot of light is an opinion that clearly demonstrates his dislike for digital.

Help me out flint, what magnification do you prefer to use when head shooting racoons? The answer will assist it determine other options

BB

 

[Flintknapper]

Benny,

I think at a minimum...I would require 6 power. Some shots will be under 100 yds. but the majority will be at 100 yds. or just over.

I still have relatively good vision (no corrective lenses, etc), but my 60 year old eyes are certainly not what they used to be. I would think that 8 to 10 power would be about ideal...in terms of magnification.

Another consideration...would be the type 'reticle' used. It needs to be easily seen...but not so large as to obstruct the sight picture. All of my normal scopes have reticles in the Second Focal Plane, so they do not 'grow/get larger' with magnification. My understanding...is that a fixed power digital...would act the same.

 

[Bennybone]

There are a couple of new add-on products in the works one by armasight and another simply known as Remora they are due out at the end off 2015 . They might be something to consider if you haven't found anything else by then.

When you do decide please Update the thread as it certainly will be good to know if digital has an accurate option for repeatedly hitting a 2x2 spot at 100 yards.

BB

 

[OpticsPlanet]

"TimG must have a lot of Vampires to sell...

His statement that the ONLY reason to hunt with digital is if you have a lot of light is an opinion that clearly demonstrates his dislike for digital."

Correct, after testing out many different night vision products from different manufactures - I do not like digital. The amount of digital night vision returns I have personally processed from disappointed customers, along with testing the units myself, has led me to this conclusion.

So, you must have compared the CORE technology to digital night vision?

Tim G.

 

[Bennybone]

Correct, after testing out many different night vision products from different manufactures - I do not like digital. The amount of digital night vision returns I have personally processed from disappointed customers, along with testing the units myself, has led me to this conclusion.

So, you must have compared the CORE technology to digital night vision?

Tim G.

The original posters stated purpose is to accomplish headshots on raccoons at 100 yards consistently, you come in with a 3x optic as a possible choice and provide an opinion that casts shade on digital technology.

I don't need to have tested the Armasight CORE (Vampire) to know that headshots at 100 yards of small varmints isn't any easier with a 3x versus 4.5x (with digital zoom) or an option that allows for 6 - 8x (dayscope) with digital viewer.

I will test the Armasight Vampire later this Spring - but it doesn't make it any better of an option for the original posters scenario nor does it qualify to the stated topic in the threads title which is digital night vision accuracy, in my opinion.

BB

 

[OpticsPlanet]

The original posters stated purpose is to accomplish headshots on raccoons at 100 yards consistently, you come in with a 3x optic as a possible choice and provide an opinion that casts shade on digital technology.

I don't need to have tested the Armasight CORE (Vampire) to know that headshots at 100 yards of small varmints isn't any easier with a 3x versus 4.5x (with digital zoom) or an option that allows for 6 - 8x (dayscope) with digital viewer.

There's a lot more to night vision then just magnification. I can see better at night at 100 yards with my PVS-14 then I can with a 3x Gen 1 scope.

The CORE line, not just the Vampire, are very close to Gen 2 in function. In comparison, digital is compared to Gen 1 in this price range. If the CORE tubes had the microchannel plate, they would be Gen 2. The price point of the CORE products means your money goes farther for a night optic then a similar priced digital unit.

I own and use nightvision, I don't just throw my opinion out there without having experience with these units.

Get back to me when you have tested the Vampire and a similar priced digital unit side by side.

That being said, for sub-MOA accuracy at 100 yards, OP would be far better off using a game spotter with a quality day scope.

Tim G.

 

[benzy2]

The best solution is finally mentioned. Pass on bottom tier night vision and grab a game spotter and a decent day optic.

I like OpticsPlanet as a store, but in my opinion Tim is vastly overstating the capabilities of the CORE gen1 system.

For a better illustration, watch:

Armasight Core monocular (gen1 with marketing hype)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aDMLHSCxTEw

Armasight Gen2 monocular
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v-cDYf8etuY

These are both armasight systems, both filmed by the same retailer at the same locations. They are vastly different image quality.

Truth is, gen1 is still just gen1. It may be usable to 50 yards on a bright night with an illuminator, but by the time you spend the cash on a good IR illuminator, your into gen2 prices. It's simply not worth the cash in most uses. A good light and a semi-decent day optic will give equal or better results, and still be usable in the day. I'd be thrilled with a $500-$800 night vision option that works well, but it's not here yet.

 

[Bennybone]

The best solution is finally mentioned. Pass on bottom tier night vision and grab a game spotter and a decent day optic.

I like OpticsPlanet as a store, but in my opinion Tim is vastly overstating the capabilities of the CORE gen1 system.

For a better illustration, watch:

Armasight Core monocular (gen1 with marketing hype)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aDMLHSCxTEw

Armasight Gen2 monocular
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v-cDYf8etuY

These are both armasight systems, both filmed by the same retailer at the same locations. They are vastly different image quality.

Truth is, gen1 is still just gen1. It may be usable to 50 yards on a bright night with an illuminator, but by the time you spend the cash on a good IR illuminator, your into gen2 prices. It's simply not worth the cash in most uses. A good light and a semi-decent day optic will give equal or better results, and still be usable in the day. I'd be thrilled with a $500-$800 night vision option that works well, but it's not here yet.

I'll agree with this assessment given the original posters scenario outside of that there are a couple of options in the 7hundred - 1k price range that will get the job done easily on hog or coyote sized game inside of 125 yards.

 

[OpticsPlanet]

I like OpticsPlanet as a store, but in my opinion Tim is vastly overstating the capabilities of the CORE gen1 system.

For a better illustration, watch:

Armasight Core monocular (gen1 with marketing hype)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aDMLHSCxTEw

Armasight Gen2 monocular
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v-cDYf8etuY

These are both armasight systems, both filmed by the same retailer at the same locations. They are vastly different image quality.

Truth is, gen1 is still just gen1. It may be usable to 50 yards on a bright night with an illuminator, but by the time you spend the cash on a good IR illuminator, your into gen2 prices. It's simply not worth the cash in most uses. A good light and a semi-decent day optic will give equal or better results, and still be usable in the day. I'd be thrilled with a $500-$800 night vision option that works well, but it's not here yet.

You are comparing a $550 CORE unit to a $2000 Gen 2 unit.

As I said, the CORE unit does not have a Microchannel plate so it is NOT Gen 2.

If you had a Gen 1, CORE, and Gen 2 all together, and tested one right after another, you would say the CORE is closer to Gen 2 then it is the Gen 1.

That's the point. Nothing compares to CORE in the price range. Not Gen 1, not digital.

Comparing a $550 unit to a $2000 one is not a fair comparison.

Tim G.