Night Vision Ir hunter mk ll 20mm vs 35mm

[rifleman1981]

I'm fixing to buy an ir hunter mk ll, can anyone explain the difference between the 20mm and the 35mm, and how much difference there is in detection ability or image quality? Obviously there's an advantage to the 35mm or it wouldn't be $1000 higher, I just haven't had an opportunity to do a side by side comparison.

 

[Fongman]

It would be wise to kinda figure out what kind of range you would like to engage out to on a regular basis. Along with what FOV you can be satisfied with. If all your shots are going to be sub 200 yards then the 20mm makes the most sense. If you want to engage out to 350/400 ish then 35mm. Anything beyond that and the 60mm is the pick. FOV and Magnification of target is what you need to figure out.

You're going to have a greater FOV with the 20mm, but less magnification of the target. Much greater magnification with the 60mm, but much less FOV etc...

I went with a 35mm system. There are times when I wish I had more FOV, but there have been times I needed all the magnification it gave me. I have no regrets - except not being free enough to use it more often.

Hope that helps.

 

[wigwamitus]

I like the 35mm myself ... I bought it as a Mk2 35mm ... I upgraded to Mk3 and everyone thought I was crazy to not go for the 60mm
There are times when I think the 60mm would be great .. but when close in ... under 200yds ... I've glad I have the 35mm ...
Net/net for my purposes on my terrain .. the 35mm works ... it can be a long range spotter (on 2x) or a close in weapons sight ... very flexible ... the 20mm or the 60mm could not do both ...

 

[rifleman1981]

I'm guiding commercial pig hunts with it, and will probably do some mid range predator hunts with it as well. I would say about everything I do will be between 25 and 500 yards. If I'm understand this right, the bigger the objective, the less the field of view? That's kinda ass backwards.....

 

[samson7x]

Yes, bigger lens equates to higher mag and less FOV. At ranges of 25-500yds, 35mm will be your best bet IMO. I use the 35mm myself and have taken shots up to 400yds with success.

 

[rifleman1981]

Will there be any difference in clarity between the 20, 35, and the 60? Or any other disadvantages of going with the 35? And if used as a clip on in front of a scope, won't I have more magnification if I need it up to about 5 power?

 

[Fongman]

Clarity - no difference. All scopes use the same core processing. BUT the target will be bigger in the higher objective scopes. So yes, you'd be able to see it better. Having said that, if you are wanting ranges between 25 - 500 your best bet is the 35mm IMO.

Tried using my MKII as a clip on and just wasn't a fan. It's just too heavy IMO on the end of the forend. I think it best to develop a full time night gun. Or buy really good QD mount for your day scope.

 

[wigwamitus]

Note, for the most part, the "lens sizes" we talk about for thermals are "focal length" not lens diameter. So yes, a longer focal length results in a reduced FOV.

 

[wigwamitus]

Also, note, for me, thermals on the rifle, still have two purposes, spotting and shooting.

My "go to" gun for night purposes, is a colt 10.3 upper with the 35mm Mk3 on top. This system can id hogs out to 1200yds (done that) on 2x black hot. Though for me shooting standing up, this is a 300yd system best case, though usually under 100yds. So while I rarely shoot over 100yds, I spot out to 1000yds and further, often.
It is the spotting use case, where I sometimes wish I had the 60mm .. .but for shooting, on the land around me, I prefer the 35mm, greater FOV. On 2x, the 35mm gets the job done, though as an LR spotter, the 60mm would definitely be preferred.
So the answer depends, as always, on your use cases. If you spot out to 1000yds or so much more often than you shoot under 100yds ... or if you hunt with a buddy who has a 35mm, then one guy with a 60mm would be a good compliment.

 

[rifleman1981]

Aside from being heavy and off balanced, how did it work as a clip on in terms of clarity, and what magnification scopes were you guys running them on?

 

[wigwamitus]

When you enter "clip on" mode, the display shrinks ... this enables support for magnification up to 4x, per the manufacturer.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_18/...s---Product-Updates-and-Reviews.html#i4118168

 

[wigwamitus]

I did try it once maybe a year ago (clip on mode) and had issues ... and I got told it only worked with the day scope on 1x ... so I never tried it again. But per UNV, per IRD, in the above thread, it can work up to 4x, so I'd also like to hear if anyone has gotten it to work at 4x ... which, since the scopes themselves are magnified, that would indicate more than 4x effective.
Currently, I'm trying to zero the SNIPE in my practicing thread ... I think I will get it done tonight. The SNIPE has a fancy (expensive) collimating lens on the back, so it should work better. And I'm comfortable with the image at 8x (on the day scope), though it is certainly clearer at lower mags.

 

[tozz]

FOV is inversely proportional to the magnification (as the magnification increases, the FOV decreases)

 

[j-huskey]

I owned a mk2 35. I was able to use the mk2 20 for a week b4 I purchased the 35. one of the tests we were able to run was on a narrow 800 yard range, and a second test on a wide 1200 yard range. We are blessed with live targets on my ranges. prior to this i owned a mk1 35 and a lwts-pas13, so I had a years experience with the mk1. I had several years experience with other thermals, none of this is new to me.
My experiences are similar to wigwamxxx but there are a few differences.
I have killed pigs at night from 10' to 700 yards. At the time I got the mk1, I probably killed 2500 pigs up to that point so I had a good idea of the performance I wanted and at the time was shooting on about 3000 acres of planted crops. We had all kind of distances, and were making 800 yard day shots.
NOT A SINGLE unit available at that time gave us reliable hits past 500 yards. only two units gave us reliable distance, the pas13 and the flir t70.
The mk1 reliably performed to 300 yards. SO, WHEN I tested the mk2 units, the mk2 35 was pretty identical to the mk1, easy 300.
BUT, neither mk1 or mk2 35 was real good in the woods 25 AND UNDER... and we had a few experiences there, but the majority of our shooting was 25-100, about 70%, with 25% 100-300, and 5ish% under 25.
THE MK2 20MM was great 25 and under for fov and WORKED WELL FOR ME, out to 200. After 200, the fov made the target image seem smaller , that was an optical illusion I know, but I could not shoot the 20 as well as the 35 out further so I bought the 35 as the majority of our shooting was further.
IF I WERE primarily woods hunting I would have to have the 20.
HOWEVER, when the REAP came out and I tested it, I now own two REAP'S and the pas13.
If needed the wider fov for short range, id have no trouble wanting the 20mm.

 

[White Mamba]

I owned a mk2 35. I was able to use the mk2 20 for a week b4 I purchased the 35. one of the tests we were able to run was on a narrow 800 yard range, and a second test on a wide 1200 yard range. We are blessed with live targets on my ranges. prior to this i owned a mk1 35 and a lwts-pas13, so I had a years experience with the mk1. I had several years experience with other thermals, none of this is new to me.
My experiences are similar to wigwamxxx but there are a few differences.
I have killed pigs at night from 10' to 700 yards. At the time I got the mk1, I probably killed 2500 pigs up to that point so I had a good idea of the performance I wanted and at the time was shooting on about 3000 acres of planted crops. We had all kind of distances, and were making 800 yard day shots.
NOT A SINGLE unit available at that time gave us reliable hits past 500 yards. only two units gave us reliable distance, the pas13 and the flir t70.
The mk1 reliably performed to 300 yards. SO, WHEN I tested the mk2 units, the mk2 35 was pretty identical to the mk1, easy 300.
BUT, neither mk1 or mk2 35 was real good in the woods 25 AND UNDER... and we had a few experiences there, but the majority of our shooting was 25-100, about 70%, with 25% 100-300, and 5ish% under 25.
THE MK2 20MM was great 25 and under for fov and WORKED WELL FOR ME, out to 200. After 200, the fov made the target image seem smaller , that was an optical illusion I know, but I could not shoot the 20 as well as the 35 out further so I bought the 35 as the majority of our shooting was further.
IF I WERE primarily woods hunting I would have to have the 20.
HOWEVER, when the REAP came out and I tested it, I now own two REAP'S and the pas13.
If needed the wider fov for short range, id have no trouble wanting the 20mm.

Good info , thanks

 

[CBDR]

I am leaning in the direction that Fongman pointed out. A dedicated night rifle. All this changing out of day optics switching over to the attaching the thermal. Its a pain in the ass. Wig, thanks again for the advice. The REAPER is the next purchase.

 

[Sledge1]

I bought the 20 mm two years ago and hunted with it 2 seasons. I found myself bumping the mag up a notch to make the shot the majority of the time. I sent it off this spring to have it bumped to the 35 mm and it's a huge difference in my eyes just playing around in the back yard. I'm hoping I don't regret it. That 20 mm is nice for hard chargers and runners.

 

[tozz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eZeXNWXjbU defo the pas

 

[j-huskey]

Bump

 

[rifleman1981]

Since this thread I’ve bought an ir defense mkll 20mm mkll 35mm, and a reap ir. I can tell you that as far as a good all around unit the mkll 35mm is hands down the way to go on a hunting rifle, the mkll 20mm just doesn’t have quite as much magnification for me, the reap ir is the same magnification as the mkll 35mm, but has a clearer zoom, is half the weight, and is a more mobile unit, but is about $800 more. If I could only go one unit, it would be the reap in my opinion.

 

[KillerCreed]

Also, note, for me, thermals on the rifle, still have two purposes, spotting and shooting.

My "go to" gun for night purposes, is a colt 10.3 upper with the 35mm Mk3 on top. This system can id hogs out to 1200yds (done that) on 2x black hot. Though for me shooting standing up, this is a 300yd system best case, though usually under 100yds. So while I rarely shoot over 100yds, I spot out to 1000yds and further, often.
It is the spotting use case, where I sometimes wish I had the 60mm .. .but for shooting, on the land around me, I prefer the 35mm, greater FOV. On 2x, the 35mm gets the job done, though as an LR spotter, the 60mm would definitely be preferred.
So the answer depends, as always, on your use cases. If you spot out to 1000yds or so much more often than you shoot under 100yds ... or if you hunt with a buddy who has a 35mm, then one guy with a 60mm would be a good compliment.

Hey WW...I notice u have an IR Illuminator on side of gun...I have 1300 to spend

...which of these two would u prefer for I don’t know much about em but I want one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wigwamitus]

KC, that is an "ir-laser" ... i.e. an "aiming" or "pointing" laser ...

A "laser illuminator" is a different critter.

==
If you want an ir-laser ... that one on the side of my carbine is a Steiner CQBL-1 ... and it is not shabby ... I've seen them for around $700 in the past, but not seeing that price right now.

On the other hand, if you want an ir-illuminator for the SIMRAD ... then the luna Optics ELIR-3 is a good catch ... I've seen those recently for around $318 on Optics Planet and $384 on Amazon. Let me know if you get one and I can get on phone with you and help with the set up.

==
I would not recommend those "integrated" solutions like you are showing as they have crappy ir-illuminators ... not worth the trouble or the cost ...