200 yard Running Hog Kill With an ATN ThOR Thermal Scope

[TEXASLAWMAN]

Not mine but a good example of a atn thor. They missed him a bunch but the big boy gets tired and slows down.

 

[Chopperdrvr]

It looked like he was right on target the first shot. Don't know how he missed. The resolution was pretty good all the way out to the last shot. (Still wish I was rich)

 

[DaveABQ]

Problem is, what was he recording with, was it capable of recording max resolution, then when he processed to upload, did he reduce resolution again so it wasn't such a big file. .. can't tell those things by watching a video

 

[DaveABQ]

that was also at 200 yards

so watch this video with a 3x 320 Thor, and some guys who shoot even worse, video looks pretty good, still doesn't say what the resolution is

 

[TEXASLAWMAN]

He's recording with the mdvr from ultimate Nightvision. It records in 720.
It's the exact same recorder I've been using.

 

[FrankT]

your vids seem much better.

 

[TEXASLAWMAN]

your vids seem much better.

Problem is, what was he recording with, was it capable of recording max resolution, then when he processed to upload, did he reduce resolution again so it wasn't such a big file. .. can't tell those things by watching a video

It shows to be recorded and uploaded in hd 720. The w1000 is only 320 but I record it in 720 so there is no loss. I have not been able to play with the thors very much but I hope to change that in the future. Again when comparing the thor to the w1000 your comparing a milspec unit to a civilian hunting unit. I'm no thermal engineer like the guys at Ident so I can not explain the internal differences. But I know in photography a good lens makes all the difference. That lens on the 1000 is huge. People who I have talked to that have used the thor seem to really like it. Of course it may be the only thermal they have used also. So far out of everything out there to date the w1000 is the best bang for the buck in my opinion, and holds its own well into the $10k+ range.

You also have to consider the scopes may be out of focus. I was not intending this to be a thor bashing thread but more of a enjoy this video kind of thread.

 

[FrankT]

Hey either are better than mine...LOL

 

[Itsazonik]

Interesting shooting there. I have been looking at the thor's and thinking of getting one. Not easy to drop that much money at once though

 

[DaveABQ]

Again when comparing the thor to the w1000 your comparing a milspec unit to a civilian hunting unit. I'm no thermal engineer like the guys at Ident so I can not explain the internal differences. But I know in photography a good lens makes all the difference. That lens on the 1000 is huge. People who I have talked to that have used the thor seem to really like it. Of course it may be the only thermal they have used also. So far out of everything out there to date the w1000 is the best bang for the buck in my opinion, and holds its own well into the $10k+ range.

You also have to consider the scopes may be out of focus. I was not intending this to be a thor bashing thread but more of a enjoy this video kind of thread.

On a thermal imager, the lens did make all the difference. But mil-spec vs civilian doesn't really have much weight here as all government/military products come from the civilian side. I worked with the military for 28 years. The term mil-spec in many applications is really related to strength and environmental specifications and not performance.

I designed ground-to-ground, air-to-air radar as well as Lantirn (F-16) systems for the F-16, AV-8B, EA-6B, B2 Bomber, MH-53J, MH-60G, etc. My role was a hardware engineer which mainly consisted of function internally and preformance of the unit vs the outside. I designed using mil-spec parts, in other words ceramic chips vs plastic, etc, those items that could withstand the abuse related to the application.

In thermal, you are right Todd, the quality, not size is the lens, makes the difference, has nothing to do with mil-spec, had to do with whatever the specification of the customer, whether it be the military or whoever. I believe the size is the lens equates to field-of-view in thermal.

I don't want to make it seem that I'm defending the Thor, I'm not, the W1000 in my opinion is a much better unit. My original post was because I've seen much better videos of the Thor. Remember, most of these designers/manufacturers are making many of these thermal scopes in the hope that they are going to be selected to be used by the military. The same holds true for cartridges, Bill Alexander was hoping that the 6.5 Grendel was going to be selected by the military as a replacement for the 5.56 and probably why he went with a .300" neck and compound throat as it would be more applicable to full auto fire.

IF you really want to geek yourself out, read this article on performance design of thermal imagers.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-ZwYxus-Y5sC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=thermal imaging lens size&source=bl&ots=8fglHmqXdR&sig=E_UyxkEseY1BjVY8nreF1i-aW_k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lGKQU7qJL4KtyAS94YDIBQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBzgK

 

[Brian Shaffer]

They missed him a bunch but the big boy gets tired and slows down.

The boar slowed down, but I think the video has also been slo-mo'd at the time of the kill shot for dramatic effect.

It looked like he was right on target the first shot. Don't know how he missed.

That's a head scratcher, isn't it. The THOR has a variety of reticle options and DaveABQ showed one of the other options in the vid he posted for comparison, a reticle I think I would be more prone to use because it shows the actual cross of the crosshairs.

I did a screen capture of the first shot, complete with muzzle heat bloom from the shot. You can still see the outline of the top of the hog. I don't know why he would not have hit it. Maybe he did. Maybe that is why the was slowing down. Looks like the shot was a little far back and a little low, if this image is an indicator of where the impact should be. Without hitting the spine, a shot in this location isn't apt to produce DRT incapacitation, especially not with .223 which is looks like they are using.

Over on THF, Bearclaw who posted the video said that the boar was hit 4 times.

 

[TEXASLAWMAN]

On a thermal imager, the lens did make all the difference. But mil-spec vs civilian doesn't really have much weight here as all government/military products come from the civilian side. I worked with the military for 28 years. The term mil-spec in many applications is really related to strength and environmental specifications and not performance.



In thermal, you are right Todd, the quality, not size is the lens, makes the difference, has nothing to do with mil-spec, had to do with whatever the specification of the customer, whether it be the military or whoever. I believe the size is the lens equates to field-of-view in thermal.

. Remember, most of these designers/manufacturers are making many of these thermal scopes in the hope that they are going to be selected to be used by the military.

Point one yes that's what I mean by milspec your getting a unit that is tough vs a civilian unit when dropping that kind of cash the tougher the better. As far as milspec lens vs civilian lens the milspec lens that says it's a 3.5x is a true 3.5x. The civilian 3.5x may be 3.5x may be 2.5x or whatever the guidelines aren't as stringent.

As for lens size I do not know about thermal but with day scopes the bigger it is the more light it gathers. This is just an assumption on my end but that huge lens on the w1000 is why I think it detects farther than most thermals out there. Nothing I have used to this pint detects as far not even the new LWTS.

For most of these scope being produced I hopes of a military contract that does not seem to be the trend at all. Everything released lately has been for hunting purposes the military contracts have dwindled and the thermal manufactures have switched focus.

 

[BigRedDog]

Please tell me that something is lost in the translation on these images.

Please

 

[Brian Shaffer]

Okay, something is lost in translation, but at 200 yards, that is pretty good footage. Through the scope is best. Downloaded to the computer is 2nd best. On the DVR itself is 3rd. Uploaded and compressed for Youtube and then viewed is 4th. The THOR 5x has a very nice image.

As for lens size I do not know about thermal but with day scopes the bigger it is the more light it gathers. This is just an assumption on my end but that huge lens on the w1000 is why I think it detects farther than most thermals out there.

Generally speaking, bigger is better, regular or thermal. If you were to err on one side or the other, erring to the larger side is the way to go.

 

[Brian Shaffer]

On a different note, this video shows something really neat. SOME people like to talk about how hogs have such poor vision. IIRC when this video was done, there wasn't much in the way of moon. Yet you see this large hog, running scared, wounded by multiple shots, yet only slows slightly to negotiate scooting under a fence.

He didn't crash into it. He dipped his head to get under it just when he needed to do so, slowing slightly, and was back to speed immediately. That isn't something he could have done via hearing or sense of smell. That was done visually. Hogs really do see pretty well and certainly see better than humans do in the dark.

 

[Chopperdrvr]

The boar slowed down, but I think the video has also been slo-mo'd at the time of the kill shot for dramatic effect.



That's a head scratcher, isn't it. The THOR has a variety of reticle options and DaveABQ showed one of the other options in the vid he posted for comparison, a reticle I think I would be more prone to use because it shows the actual cross of the crosshairs.

I did a screen capture of the first shot, complete with muzzle heat bloom from the shot. You can still see the outline of the top of the hog. I don't know why he would not have hit it. Maybe he did. Maybe that is why the was slowing down. Looks like the shot was a little far back and a little low, if this image is an indicator of where the impact should be. Without hitting the spine, a shot in this location isn't apt to produce DRT incapacitation, especially not with .223 which is looks like they are using.

Over on THF, Bearclaw who posted the video said that the boar was hit 4 times.

View attachment 1264

Yea, I'm with you, it looks like he did get hit the first shot, but just enough to slow him down a little later on. He looked like he was staggering some as he tried to get up to speed prior to getting to the fence, then found another gear.

 

[TEXASLAWMAN]

Yea, I'm with you, it looks like he did get hit the first shot, but just enough to slow him down a little later on. He looked like he was staggering some as he tried to get up to speed prior to getting to the fence, then found another gear.

He may not have been hit I've seen plenty of big boars tire out after a hundred yard sprint. In fact hunting them with Alex where it's open for miles I have seen them just stop after a couple hundred yards.

 

[DaveABQ]

That is interesting, they say hogs can't see any better than us at night, which is BS, they will fly right through the brush when they are running. I agree they can't see as well as a deer, etc., but believe they can see better than us and it isn't purely related to patterning.

 

[TEXASLAWMAN]

I think they see pretty well that's why I wear camo.