Night Vision LWTS vs UTM

J

jstokes1

Supporter
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Dec 17, 2018
539
985
Monroe, Louisiana
#1
Since this place is a wealth of knowledge from experienced operators, is there someone here that has used both the LWTS and UTM (the regular one, not the UTM-X) and compared the picture quality? Currently not sure which way to lean.
 
#2
They’re apples to oranges in every way. LWTS is 640 and the UTM is 320.

LWTS is a fully collimated clip on, the UTM is not. UTM is a good handheld but that’s about it. For what a regular UTM sells for you can get a 640 Trijicon which still uses a BAE core and will have a full warranty too.

If you want a clip on or sight, get the LWTS. If you want a handheld then get a M250 or M300W for the same money.
 
#3
I was told that the regular UTM is 640x480 with a 17 micron core, are you confused with the MTM? The only 320 is the SkeetIR from what I was told and see. Also, I used to have a trijicon REAP-IR and I was not really impressed with the image quality.
 
Last edited:
#4
The UTM is a 640 core.. Redneck is very well versed in NV and thermal, so Im sure it was
just an oversite/ misread on his input.

Reading further into this, I find that some Utm's were 320 cores..
 
Last edited:
#5
There are 25 micron UTMs that are 320 and 17 micron UTMs that are 640 ... EVERYBODY is correct :)

You can tell by looking at the boot screen was shows "60 Hz" for the 640 units (which are 60 hz) or nothing for the 320 units (which are 30 hz).
 
#6
But I agree with Redneck ... the UTM is not designed as a clipon ... the LWTS is ... So if you want a clipon, the LWTS is the way to go between those two units.
 
#7
The SNIPE is another under $10k option for a clipon ... and it has collimating lens on the back, like a real clipon. Unfortunately, the one SNIPE I had for testing apparently had NOT been on a collimating table !!?? There was considerable verticle and horiontal offset to account for. Fortunately, the SNIPE allows for this, But, this limits the SNIPEs usefulness. Perhaps not all SNIPEs have this "feature" ? IDK, I did not test them all :)

While the SNIPE lists for $9,999, street prices seems to be closer to $7k in my experience.
 
#8
There is also a 640 with a 30hz refresh rate. That’s the one I’m getting. I’ll try it as a clip on and report on how well it works since information is so limited on these units.
 
Last edited:
#9
I wouldn't waste your time and money with it is a clip on. They aren't collimated, and the play in the flip to side mount and wilcox dovetail is not what you want for a clip on.

You're going to be disappointed and end up trying to sell it at a loss to buy what you should have gotten in the first place.
 
#15

No, they're absolutely not. I've owned one, and it was also 320 not 640. If someone told you that then they don't have a clue what they're talking about. They're not collimated and even if they were theres far too much play between the dovetail and the mount to ever be repeatable. My buddy also just got a UTMX... also not collimated.

If you want a collimated BAE then you need to be looking at a UTC.
 
#16

Where does it say it's collimated? It doesn't because it's not.

Whatever though, it's your money so no skin off my ass when you get it and you're disappointed. You've got two people here that have actually owned them telling you you're making a mistake by getting one to use as a clip on. What do we know though, we've only got actual hands on experience with both units.
 
#17
Please provide proof they are 320x240. I have owned several of these. And mine weren't 320 cores. Also the ones that had collimation issues were the first Gen UTM X's. Not the Standard Utm line...And they fixed the X line shorty after releasing them by changing the lens geometry. I haven't had any issues with collimation with my standard UTM's. Really not sure what we are using for information source here.
 
#18

I had one that was absolutely 100% positively 320x240 resolution and 30hz. There's no way it was 640 resolution, if it was it was the worst 640 resolution thermal ever made. I've used quite a few 320 and 640 units and know what they look like.

I sold it after less than a month because the low refresh rate made it suck as a scanner which is what I bought it to do. Mine was definitely not an X either and if it went on a collimation table then it did not get collimated because the POI was like 2' off of my day optic zero. My LWTS on the other hand I shot a 10 shot group one round on, one round off, one round on, one round off for 10 rounds and it was a sub 3/4moa group shooting at a 2" or so aluminum foil circle that was sort of warmed up by the sun behind me.

That's my experience with both units and no way in hell would I pick a UTM over a LWTS as a clip on because that's not what it's designed to do and it does it very poorly. In that price range the only other unit I'd be looking at is a T75. Even as a scanner I'd love to have a UTM-X but it's not worth the $27K price tag to me and I'm not buying someones stolen shit that's a paperweight if it ever has an issue. I had a legitimately acquired Skeetir and I still got rid of that for M300W because it was also a 320 unit.
 
#20
Your Spec Sheet seems to be a preproduction one.....Red....
Plus your personal experience leads me to believe you got an older model UTM......
Have used tons of UTM's they come in many flavors given that there were many contract batches.....17 micron and 25 micron.....Only the early ones were 25 micron. All have been 640....and 60 hz. Only thing different are firmware upgrades that give or take. The Commercial Skeet-L came out with a 320 but the originals were 640. As from my experience...tuning was never a problem. The early UTM-X had issues...hence fixed with the different eye lens....
I'm sorry your experience with the BAE stuff has been not that great, but for me....the LASER...and Digital Compass plus the flexibility and smoothness vs a LWTS makes it a nobrainer a superior product. Maybe you just got bad units.... with older upgraded firmware... your general information seemingly downgrades the fact that there is nothing on the commercial market that will compare to the UTM even now.
I own also a TRIJICON REAP-IR....and it even doesn't compare overall. The 12 micron makes it clearer but when you use it in real world...there is not much of a difference plus the durability is suspect.
 
#24
]



We eagerly await reports of these UTMs being shot out to 900yds at IPSC(2/3) heated steel and being dead on ... switching between several rifles with no adjustments !!!

(that's been my experience with my UTC-x ... but dang .. .apparently I bought too much clipon ... should've got a UTM instead !!! )

.300WM(24) with UTC-x

 
#26
REAP will make a better handheld scanner due to its profile and 60hz refresh rate. They’re great dedicated scopes but it will make a poor clip on however because it’s not collimated.

LWTS is a poor choice for a handheld scanner due to its profile and 30hz refresh rate but makes for a great dedicated scope and clip on since it’s collimated.

Apples to oranges really and depends on what type of unit you’re looking for. There’s no one unit that does it all.
 
#27
I use a mk3 60mm as my night spotter ... I mount it on a 5.56(10.3) so its a "hand held scanner with a barrel" ... and pair that with a UTC-x clipon on a rifle like a 7.62(22) bolt gun ... the UTC-x is pretty much useless as a scanner or scope due to the tiny screen on the back. And the mk3 60mm not a good scope for 300-500yds due to lack of a reticle. But the combination of those two is very capable.





I need a drag bag to make it easier to carry both.
 
#31
Have a question, looking at a used BAE OASYS UTM looking at pictures it looks like it has some dead pixels. Would you guys purchase a used unit like this or is it something that if it goes bad you're f*cked? Thanks in advance.
 
#32
All UTMs are/were 640px. They never made a 320px UTM. Zemper is correct.

UTM is 17um/30Hz
UTM-x is 17um/60Hz

X has TracIR, non-X does not.

They did not release (yet) a 12um core UTM-Xii, but there are a few engineering samples running around (in black instead of tan).

The original UTM makes an excellent clip-on, if you know how to use it. It’s only a 1x unit, so it’s very similar to how the SkeetIR performs, which is also a very good clip-on if you know how to use / adjust it. I’d say both have a practical effectiveness — at least for me — out to ~300m, maybe a little farther, but I don’t even take shots that far with my UTC.

The VAST majority of UTM’s and UTM-X’s floating around out there are radioactive — i.e. were previously owned by Uncle Sugar and do not come with any form of release paperwork and are therefore subject to seizure. This is why I no longer own one nor will I without the appropriate release papers.
 
Last edited:
#33
Is there info out there on the correct way to use it (skeet) as a clip on? I can only figure to use the eyepiece on the skeet to create a clear image with my scope, then deal with focus with the skeet objective. Is there something more subtle to do?
 
#35

Well, possible / likely radioactivity aside, UTMs are now 7-9 years old. Four stuck/dead pixels ain’t so bad. Some will disappear with a NUC, but assume there’s no fix.

What price?
 
#37
Non-Uniform Correction. Uncooled thermals need to continuously compensate for thermal drift on the FPGA. Most units, including the UTM, need to do that manually. If pixels are just “stuck” and not entirely bad, a NUC will sometimes fix them.

Most people would pay $4500 for a UTM. Personally, I would only if it has release paperwork. I’m not going out on much of a limb saying yours likely will not have such paperwork, so you’ll want to refrain from posting photos of it online.
 
#43
Hey Guys - I currently own a standard UTM with the following nomenclature on the "boot-up". I was hoping that maybe "the Horta" could give some insight re: what I have exactly in reference to these specs. This unit does not have any serial number on the bottom which seems kind of strange. Can someone give some insight please:

Oasys

Technology

FPGA V128.9

MC V8.59

BL V5.44

UTM
 
#47
True story.
If you perform the ritual, but make a pentagram of MRE milkshake powder and meatloaf, he’s immediately summoned into any muddy waters in his vicinity…

I tried it once, worked like a charm.
 
Last edited:
#49
I would say that they are. The older ones are 640 with a 25um sensor. I know for a fact that it's the older ones are 640 based on the FOV. If they were a 320 unit with a bigger germanium lens, the FOV would be quite small and not the 22.4⁰ that it is as the FOV is the same as the Skeet L (which has a much smaller lens but is 320).
 
#50
UTMs are all 640.

First Gen UTCs are 320.

Skeet-L is 320.

There could be some early BAE prototype in 320 out there that I’m not aware of. It’s not out of the realm of possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts