Old (possibly very old) sniper's dogma?

[Motard]

Remember some years ago bought in States my first thermal and general consensus was: track 'em with thermal shot 'em with nv. This dogma was universally applied regardless numbers od feet of the prey mainly because of the fast aquisition given from thermal devices and the better shooting scenarios offered from Nv. Personally I am still anchored at this dogma but I'd like to ear other' experiences.

 

[HonestJohn]

With the advent of high sensors like 1280’s, and just general improvements in processors, screens, firmware etc, big standard 640’s will deliver terrain detail now (weather conditions permitting), allowing for sufficiently good pictures to ethically and safely use thermal in exclusivity. Back ‘then’, the thermal was more of ‘see the heat blob’, then target with NV due to limitations in thermal technology.

I suspect in the next few years, we will see more growth in Fusion, and a retreat in dedicated NV and thermal. With Fusion, I mean NV with thermal signature overlay type of arrangements.

Then after a massive solar flare has fried everyone’s scopes, the price of glass will skyrocket and only those with glass scopes will be going stalking and foxing

 

[old keeper]

Ever since the arrival of thermal, I've followed the same system: spot with the thermal and shoot with something else, Lamp. NV in various guises such as Pard, Archer, Longbow, Wraith, etc. I also invested in a thermal scope but passed that on to my younger shooting partner as zeroing in daylight was a bit of a struggle with my ageing eyes.

Without a doubt, full thermal (spotter and scope) allows very quick acquisition of the target, once spotted. Just lately I've gone back to the thermal/lamp combination with good results and enjoy being able to see the fox as it really is through the scope as opposed to a thermal image. I've run a fox control business for decades and need to remove foxes that are causing problems, rather than just shooting them for sport. and I find that using thermal to spot, (I use a pair of Habroks), then switching to either lamp or NV, (the good old Archer has been seeing some use recently too) works well for me.

For those who shoot foxes for sport rather than as a necessity, does it really matter if now and then a fox slips away because you can't find it when switching from a thermal spotter to the scope? It will be there another night. I've always thought that there should be a balance between quarry and shooter. After a lifetime of fox control, I see the challenge of shooting foxes at night has swung totally in the shooter's favour. Fieldcraft has all but disappeared and considerable sums of money are spent shooting something that has no value.

The thermal/lamp setup still has a small amount of challenge but looking back over many years of dealing with foxes I have to say it has all got a bit clinical nowadays.

 

[finnbear270]

I get some value; From the farmer unlimited use of his extensive land for any shooting related purpose I may find I need, sometimes at very short notice.
And a gratuity in the form of some of his produce.
Freedom to wander with the other half for walking.
& Regular trigger time.

 

[Motard]

Ever since the arrival of thermal, I've followed the same system: spot with the thermal and shoot with something else, Lamp. NV in various guises such as Pard, Archer, Longbow, Wraith, etc. I also invested in a thermal scope but passed that on to my younger shooting partner as zeroing in daylight was a bit of a struggle with my ageing eyes.

Without a doubt, full thermal (spotter and scope) allows very quick acquisition of the target, once spotted. Just lately I've gone back to the thermal/lamp combination with good results and enjoy being able to see the fox as it really is through the scope as opposed to a thermal image. I've run a fox control business for decades and need to remove foxes that are causing problems, rather than just shooting them for sport. and I find that using thermal to spot, (I use a pair of Habroks), then switching to either lamp or NV, (the good old Archer has been seeing some use recently too) works well for me.

For those who shoot foxes for sport rather than as a necessity, does it really matter if now and then a fox slips away because you can't find it when switching from a thermal spotter to the scope? It will be there another night. I've always thought that there should be a balance between quarry and shooter. After a lifetime of fox control, I see the challenge of shooting foxes at night has swung totally in the shooter's favour. Fieldcraft has all but disappeared and considerable sums of money are spent shooting something that has no value.

The thermal/lamp setup still has a small amount of challenge but looking back over many years of dealing with foxes I have to say it has all got a bit clinical nowadays.

You are right about the blob thermal signaure on first devices. Althought we (me) fastly learned identifing animal and possibly sex and somethime age too, by the way it acts exspecially within others animals. Then could shoot only within the NV range buts it was enaught 90/100 times and I was also happy with the lightness of the set I made myself. But I remembres too I was "buggered" in judgin a herd of Roe-ders in a small valley with another on top of a hill. I relized it was not a roe but something weird when it repenlys standed and showed a good tale running into the herd and making them flew away like sparrows.

 

[kenbro]

Ever since the arrival of thermal, I've followed the same system: spot with the thermal and shoot with something else, Lamp. NV in various guises such as Pard, Archer, Longbow, Wraith, etc. I also invested in a thermal scope but passed that on to my younger shooting partner as zeroing in daylight was a bit of a struggle with my ageing eyes.

Without a doubt, full thermal (spotter and scope) allows very quick acquisition of the target, once spotted. Just lately I've gone back to the thermal/lamp combination with good results and enjoy being able to see the fox as it really is through the scope as opposed to a thermal image. I've run a fox control business for decades and need to remove foxes that are causing problems, rather than just shooting them for sport. and I find that using thermal to spot, (I use a pair of Habroks), then switching to either lamp or NV, (the good old Archer has been seeing some use recently too) works well for me.

For those who shoot foxes for sport rather than as a necessity, does it really matter if now and then a fox slips away because you can't find it when switching from a thermal spotter to the scope? It will be there another night. I've always thought that there should be a balance between quarry and shooter. After a lifetime of fox control, I see the challenge of shooting foxes at night has swung totally in the shooter's favour. Fieldcraft has all but disappeared and considerable sums of money are spent shooting something that has no value.

The thermal/lamp setup still has a small amount of challenge but looking back over many years of dealing with foxes I have to say it has all got a bit clinical nowadays.

You can’t put a monetary value on fox (Or any?) shooting, it’s incalculable in its value to your well being.
Ken.

 

[Donkey Basher]

Maybe it’s because the sensor resolution isn’t high enough but when using a thermal spotter I can see, for example, a Roe deer at 80 yards clear as a bell - clear enough to accurately put a cross on the shoulder & squeeze the trigger. EXCEPT, that when I look through the binoculars, or either glass or digital scope, I find that the deer is tucked inside a big bramble bush & that any shot would likely hit something before getting to the deer. Maybe someone with one of the high end resolution thermals can tell me if a 640 sensor, for example, is that much better than a 384 that it can show the vegetation in front of the deer?

 

[mealiejimmy]

The "dogma" you describe was and still is followed by a significant number of shooters
Whether or not you should subscribe to that dogma is your decision, but more and more people are spotting and shooting with thermal
IMHO, it comes down to the level of quarry identification you are comfortable with before you take a shot
Thermal does not (and can never) match the level of image detail possible with NV, but that does not mean that thermal cannot produce an image good enough to positively identify a potential target
As has been said many times, you don't need to see it's whiskers to know it's a fox
I've been spotting and shooting with thermal for almost 10 years now and on the occasions I go back to spotting with thermal and shooting with NV I'm usually frustrated by how difficult it is to even see a target with NV that is clearly visible with thermal

Cheers

Bruce

 

[Strike]

I was out last night, met visibility forecast for my permission was VG. .308 had Alpex lrf, .204 had Thermion XQ38, and a Hik Gryphon LRF spotter. The Alpex was useless beyond 180m or so due to moisture in the air. I'm not talking fog here. Moisture not visible when driving to the permission.
If I'd not had the Thermal I could not of shot 2 foxes.
I've lost count of the nights this winter I would have had to head home if I relied on NV. Don't get me wrong I would use an NV rifle scope all the time, along side a good thermal spotter, if it was practicable to do so.
In good conditions it's brilliant and a fraction of the cost of Thermal.

 

[griffshrek]

I have personally used on foxing the whole range of lighting/ spotting techniques over the yrs , the progression i have followed :

• Filament/ bulb type lamp with traditional scope
• LED scope mounted lights with traditional scope
• NV spotter with NV scope / glass scope
• TI spotter with NV scope
• TI spotter & TI scope

MY scopes and spotters for last 6/7 yrs run the 640 sensors , which personally gave plenty of detail to positively ID and animal and terrain at sensible ranges .

With these 640's I could recognise if it was a dog fox or vixen , at sensible ranges 70% of the time.

I have recently upgraded both scope & spotter to 1280 scope / 1024 spotter sensors ( not cheap ) for someone that used TI regularly, I was blown away with the quality and detail of the 1280 / 1024 sensors. I was out last night and positively ID hedgehogs at 250+ m , easily telling hares / rabbits apart , with outstanding detail.

So in relation to the OP , I think the new 1280 TI has advanced and has surpassed NV for my requirements .

Caveat for my response, I am talking about my ability and my field experience in identifying animals and quarry. If someone was new to night shooting and new to this world , then NV would be better option to get a 100% ID .

I think the advancements in new TI coupled with some common sense and field craft you can easily tell the difference between the farm cat , Badger, woodcock , hare rabbit and fox at sensible ranges.

I have been genuinely impressed with how good the new TI sensors are , i can't imagine how God the next gen will be

 

[Motard]

Following previous answers I bet that the real step on in this field would be some kind of fusion scopes with thermal+nv channel working toghether. I know Pard released something similar but don't know how effective it is. Any experience with this or other's products?

 

[Motard]

PS just to say the basic habrok 4k I use as spotter and tracker often could met half or more of the needs. But wouln'nìt be good enaught as fir shooting

 

[jall55]

You can’t put a monetary value on fox (Or any?) shooting, it’s incalculable in its value to your well being.
Ken.

And the value to other wildlife by the removal of these predators

 

[kenbro]

Following previous answers I bet that the real step on in this field would be some kind of fusion scopes with thermal+nv channel working toghether. I know Pard released something similar but don't know how effective it is. Any experience with this or other's products?

The DNT Thermnight sight is a start in that direction.
Ken.

 

[griffshrek]

Following previous answers I bet that the real step on in this field would be some kind of fusion scopes with thermal+nv channel working toghether. I know Pard released something similar but don't know how effective it is. Any experience with this or other's products?

Following previous answers I bet that the real step on in this field would be some kind of fusion scopes with thermal+nv channel working toghether. I know Pard released something similar but don't know how effective it is. Any experience with this or other's products?

I have looked through Hadbrok HL50 and thought they were ok, personally the TI suits my requirements at this time. Never say never, if a TI /NV spotter/ scope emerges that is in my price bracket and produces same or better results id have a look . When I say have a look it will be in a few yrs time as I'm all upgraded now.

 

[FISH BOY]

The DNT Thermnight sight is a start in that direction.
Ken.

Indeed the multispectral DNT Thermnight LRF C635 - trialling one at the moment.

Think Habrocks on a rifle - HD day/night digital image as near good as the Alpex 4k with 640 res thermal and LRF ballistics in the same unit.

Best part is Picture in Picture with both (main screen digital with thermal PIP or other way round)

Tool of the future…

 

[the prowler]

The "dogma" you describe was and still is followed by a significant number of shooters
Whether or not you should subscribe to that dogma is your decision, but more and more people are spotting and shooting with thermal
IMHO, it comes down to the level of quarry identification you are comfortable with before you take a shot
Thermal does not (and can never) match the level of image detail possible with NV, but that does not mean that thermal cannot produce an image good enough to positively identify a potential target
As has been said many times, you don't need to see it's whiskers to know it's a fox
I've been spotting and shooting with thermal for almost 10 years now and on the occasions I go back to spotting with thermal and shooting with NV I'm usually frustrated by how difficult it is to even see a target with NV that is clearly visible with thermal

Cheers

Bruce

As Bruce has said. Lost count of how many foxes I could see with the thermal monocular or binocular, then can't see it with nv. Not a great problem if your a non game keeper. But I do love my sport. As for what ( old keeper ) has said about field craft, I still think mine is a very high standard. A fox is very crafty. Even using thermal, nv or lamp.

 

[kenbro]

Indeed the multispectral DNT Thermnight LRF C635 - trialling one at the moment.

Think Habrocks on a rifle - HD day/night digital image as near good as the Alpex 4k with 640 res thermal and LRF ballistics in the same unit.

Best part is Picture in Picture with both (main screen digital with thermal PIP or other way round)

Tool of the future…

Looking forward to your appraisal. Ken.

 

[mealiejimmy]

Following previous answers I bet that the real step on in this field would be some kind of fusion scopes with thermal+nv channel working toghether. I know Pard released something similar but don't know how effective it is. Any experience with this or other's products?

The HIK Gryphon thermal monocular has a thermal/optical fusion function where the image from the thermal sensor can be "fused" with the image from a low light mono optical sensor
I have owned one of these monoculars for over 2 years now and I can categorically state that the "fusion" function is the biggest POS I have ever used.
The "fused" image is far worse than either the thermal or optical images on their own
To get "fusion" right, both channels need to be looking at exactly the same thing with the same magnification and field of view so that the images can be exactly overlaid
Only when the images are exactly overlaid can any additional information be inferred from the image
In this respect, the HIK fails miserably with dark (optical) shadows tracking above bright white hot thermal images
It is worth noting that none of the newer HIK products have image fusion and it is not a feature found on any new thermal imagers currently on sale in the UK
IMHO, image fusion is a rabbit hole that thermal/NV products should continue to avoid
The multi spectral approach taken by DNT with their Thermnight products, PARD with their TD and Landsat scopes and to a lesser extent Pulsar with the Thermion duo where the optical and thermal images can both be seen on the screen separately but simultaneously using the Picture in Picture function is of far more use to the shooter than any fusion function

Cheers

Bruce

 

[Motard]

I was aware about Gryphon issue ad the simple fact that has been so rapidly dismissed speacks by himself. My fault referring the double teconology as fusion! We know that good nv+thermal device rely on coexistence aswell as working in separate channels and fisical tubes. Sorry but my English is not alway on pair with concepts I'd like to express.