|
Post by seksender on Oct 24, 2017 2:47:45 GMT -8
Hi, I'm a potential buyer for an ATM Thor Thermal riffle scope but can't figure out what extra I get from buying the more expensive 640 model compared to the 384 model. So what do I get extra if I buy a THOR HD 640 1-10X with a price tag on $3.999,- versus a THOR HD 384 2-8X costing $2.699,- ? It seems that I get worse detection range (800 versus 625m) worse Recognition range (400 versus 280m) and worse Identification range (250 versus 170 m). Further more the size of the objective lens goes from 25mm down to 19mm. I'm going to hunt boar. Thanks for constructive feedback.
|
|
|
Post by loco on Jan 26, 2019 16:24:01 GMT -8
I know this is a late reply. I have a thor HD 384 1.25-5 I shoot pigs and deer with it. Unless you need to shoot more than 200yards on a lot of shots, I do not think you need the 640. The only difference is the clarity at greater distances. It all depends on the distance. I am happy with mind.
|
|
|
Post by benchguy on Jan 10, 2021 5:30:19 GMT -8
Old post...but some might be interested. I own a 384 and kind of wish the 640 had been in my budget. Larger sensor = better resolution...especially at higher magnifications (since the zoom is digital...not optical). That said, if you are accustomed to high quality visual optics (eg Swarovski), do not expect that kind of resolution with thermal imaging. There is a learning curve. Thermal only "sees" heat signatures...and then only with thermal contrast. In low contrast situations (eg relatively warm environment) you are only going to "see" the parts of the warm-blooded creature that are warmer than the environment...so do not expect to see the hairs or the complete outer silhouette. However, you might get a real good read on where the eyes and heart and brain are located. In all conditions, you should get better information from the 640...but as loco said, if less than 100 yards and shooting pigs and coyotes, the 384 is adequate. FWIW, I have a 2x8 and realistically magnifications greater than 6x become somewhat blurry. Best regards,BG
|
|