I've been wanting a thermal for years, but between the price, and the pure uselessness in Alabama if you weren't well connected with getting depred permits always had me backburner it.

Today I just picked up a ATN Thor 4 384 4.5x-18 - It was between that, the 2-8x of the same series, or the Pulsar Thermion2 XQ38 - I was sorta torn between base magnification and FOV, and I chose the base mag, because I might like to hunt coyotes in some fields and cutovers that can be pretty long.
I'm sure it will feel like waiting on Christmas for it to arrive.

But if anyone has a hog infestation that is willing to let me try it out come July, I'm more than willing. I've only got the one optic, but it streams the picture to a phone so one can watch, and we can take some turns if the land owner wants to participate.

Pm sent to you

Question for the op. How do you like the 4.5x18? I had about settled on getting the 4.5x18 but i called atn and they are telling me i would like the 1x10 better because of the increased fov. There is only a few hundred dollard difference in the 2 models with the 1x10 being in 640. Im only going to be shooting 200 yards max with most shots being 150 and under. Just trying to get some real world advice from those that have used them. Thanks

FWIW, I’ll take a 1x base over a 4.5x base, even shooting to 250….any day…..but that’s me and my hunting. Especially if it’s a 384…..I doubt there’s a 384 out there that’ll let you positively ID a coyote past 250, especially if dogs or foxes might be in the mix. Heck, I’d bet most can’t tell the difference between a coyote, hog, or deer at long range with a 384….but I can’t know what all of them perform like….just what is typical. Pick clarity over magnification, all day long. JMO.

STALK at night. Get in range for positive ID….cuz you can. Again, JMO.

Thanks for the info. From all the research i have done it seems as though fov is very important in the thermal world. Thanks again!

I’ll come back on here after yesterday, just to say I’ve been proven incorrect about some of the stuff out there right now. I was wrong on some of the new 384 vs 680 stuff…..I looked through several models of 384, 25-35mm, and 12-17 micron devices from AGM, Bering, iRas, etc…..and the processors and screens WERE good enough at various base magnifications that a new user COULD likely gain positive ID and make shots on coyotes to at least 200-250. A dog or fox might confuse initially, but they were at least twice as capable due to the latest cores and software, as the 384 resolution devices I was familiar with previously. I’d have zero issue buying a Rattler 35, Thermion, or Super Hogster for all short to medium range use around here. I haven’t taken them in the field, but there was enough space to assess their returns and project what they’d likely do, at least in good conditions. I still can’t be sure they’d ID as well past 250 as some slightly higher end spec devices, but they’d detect plenty far enough, and probably be fine on hogs further out, since they’re easier to ID.

Good information!! Thanks! The rattler 35 and super hogster look nice and seem to have very good reviews. Is there one you liked better?

The ONLY real differences I could tell, or know of is that the Rattler comes with video recording ( have to go to Super Hogster to get video), a SERIOUSLY great QD Mount (ADM), and a 3 yr warranty vs 4yr for the Bering stuff. I’d have no problem with either, but you seem to get more for your $ with the Rattler. Looking through them and using features/zoom/menu? I wouldn’t be able to tell which was which, without looking at the outside of them. Personally, I’d probably buy the AGM Rattler 35 at one of the combo deals some are offering, just because of the $200 ADM mount. They’re every bit as good as Larue or Bobro, and being confident with zero when switching guns is peace of mind…..but I ordered another can TOD, so I better lay low around the house for a bit.

I’ll caveat a couple of things: I looked through the hogster, not the super. I was TOLD the only dif was the video recording. However, the Super specs a 12 micron pixel pitch vs 17 on the Rattler and regular Hogster. They also offer an upgraded Bobro mount. Even though it’s another $750-$1k, it may be worth it for longer range resolution.

To explain: the 12 vs 17 just means that there can be more wave (heat) measuring sensors on the same size area, if the sensor is smaller. So, all else being equal, the 12 can ‘potentially’ work better at resolving minor temp differences/details that are being processed into your image….which helps with longer range detection, better detection in adverse conditions (heat, rain, fog, humidity), and ‘may’ translate into better positive ID….especially on a 384 vs 680. Now, this is just extrapolation on my part, and you’ll hear a lot of stuff about saving size, cost, etc by the mfgs…..and that’s all true. However, it also makes smaller objective lenses act like larger objective lenses with detection ability. In the case of the Hogster, 35mm is 35mm….but couple that with a 12 micron pp, and now that 35mm ‘could’ act like a 50mm, which can help sensor gain/detection in adverse conditions. I can’t positively tell you that there is ANY difference you might notice, but my ‘gut’ tells me it will show up when things aren’t ideal, and make for a better package.

Also, I’ll confess that I’ve been left behind by some of the newer features to overcome weaknesses in resolution. PIP for starters. Playing with it a little, it ‘could’ expand your 384 device ID range from 150-250 into a 300+ yard, positive ID device. I haven’t hunted that feature.

Thanks for all your advice. Got the super hogster coming in the mail.

Sorry I hadn't been on ALDEER for a while. The 4.5x is good for long open fields. If you think you'll hunt woods and stuff, definitely 1x. But the 384 4.5 by ATN has been pretty clear for me so far in my tests. I haven't hunted with it yet though. If I was doing it over, I might compromise and get a 2.5x - Just because while with the 4.5x I'll be fine or advantaged in fields and cut overs, if those dry up it will be near useless in woods.

First, I’m attempting to catch up with the current, civilian thermal device market vs my remote sensing and military experience, education, and use.

Second, this doesn’t make me any sort of expert, and don’t claim to be.


About magnification in thermal devices:

Your native, bottom end magnification is controlled by several factors, few of which should be tied to the same mindset that you pick your power on traditional day scopes. Generally, the magnification is tied to where it HAS to be, by the sensor resolution, useful FOV, detector screen pixel size and distance from the objective, and the size of the objective. The higher resolution sensors (640 vs 384) are harder to get a higher native magnification with or easier to get a large field of view with (at a lower magnification). The result is you’ll get a better image at lower magnification, than a 384 with a higher magnification. You can often see more detail/shoot better and further, with a 1.5x 640, than a 4x 384. That’s a generalization, but you get the drift. To get higher mag, with higher resolution, the objective has to get bigger to enable the sensor mesh to get further from the objective, which makes the scope grow in size and cost.

Lately, there seems to be a trend in 384 devices, to try to get closer to 640s through:

-using better image processor cores, to refine the returns on 384 stuff

-combining smaller pixel pitch with larger objectives to gain more return and detail

-utilizing PIP to extend range/shot detail at the base magnification

-side benefit of smaller pitch is sensor mesh can be placed closed to the objective, increasing FOV, AND allowing MFGs to ‘slice’ out various sized sections of sensor mesh for smaller devices or totally different designs or forms of device. Smaller pp also allows the objective size to detect and perform comparable to a larger objective, shrug off high humidity better, and cut MFG costs.


BLUF: the market is forcing the brands to get VERY good at making 384-ish thermals get close to the high end stuff, for reasonable $, with good range capability, widened FOV, and many other improvements.

Examples: Pulsars (and others) that look like regular rifle scopes, so folks can run them in lower mounts and on non-AR platforms, and stuff like iRay and Bering, where 12um pp is shoved right behind 35mm objectives, with PIP, and 3x native mag.