384 vs 640 resolution

Maybe it’s a cover vs non cover thing. Black hot or white hot should show heat regardless whether it’s 256/384/640 right? I don’t need to pick hairs with a scanner, I can do that with the thermal on the rifle. I just need to know something is out there and moving.
So what am I missing in this thread as far as 384 vs 640? Are y’all using a scanner for ID or just detection?
 
My scanner is for detection, need a new one because I need reading glasses and mine has no diopter adjustment.
A 384 and 3+ base mag would meet all my scanner needs, helmet mounted would be sweet. But not realistic in temps below zero(battery life and components function).
 
my scanner is a 3.5 base mag and it sucks sometimes. one night we knew a coyote ran back into the corn at the end of the field. we kept scanning looking for it to come out anywhere. my partner whispers.."right in front of you" he finally shot it because i couldnt see it. with that 3.5 magnification i was looking right over it, it was that close.

lower magnification is better. i would try to find something with a 1.5 or 2 base mag.
 
Spurchaser said:
So what am I missing in this thread as far as 384 vs 640? Are y’all using a scanner for ID or just detection?
Click to expand...
My scanner is for detection. I use a 384 and it detects things way farther than I would ever shoot. I’ve picked up airplanes miles away with my 384 scanner. Maybe it’s an advantage in wide open spaces, or a time saver for competition guys to be able to detect and identify in the scanner? Around me, I’m not calling and killing high numbers or seeing for miles. The 384 is more than adequate for me. And 90+% of the time I know what I’m looking at.
 
My main reason for getting one is to ID, bohunr I have the same thing happen at times they run back in cover then come back to edge back and forth still behind enough cover that I can't make positive ID, I have no problem telling predator from nonpredator or domestic or farm animals, I just need to be able to make sure it's still the fox or coyote that I know went in that cover or come to the edge to look. The other reason is to be able to see what I am not seeing with light, how many are just setting out there that I don't see if I know there watching I can change sounds maybe get them coming in. Again thanks for the responses.
 
Get 640 and this is coming from one that owns both a Pulsar Telos XP50 640 unit and the New AGM Seeker 25.
The AGM is one of the best 384s I’ve looked thru but if i can only have one it will be a 640.

By the way you will end up with a thermal scope if you buy you a scanner.

That red light can work with a scanner but in the end you will want that thermal rifle scope as well i promise!
 
Chance Doane said:
By the way you will end up with a thermal scope if you buy you a scanner.

That red light can work with a scanner but in the end you will want that thermal rifle scope as well i promise!
Click to expand...

true, go out and call with a thermal scanner and lights or night vision on your rifle. You will be wishing you had thermal on your rifle, after you start only seeing the shinning eyes of animals behind illuminated weeds, that you can clearly see thru your thermal scanner.
 
After years of using thermals I have come full circle on how I use them. I used to go for detection with the scanner and better resolution in my scope for the shot. That being said, I finally realized that I spent HOURS looking through my scanner and only used the scope for a FEW minutes. Lots of times I needed to use the scope for better resolution and it was in the rack of my ATV or not turned on, or the observed target moved out of sight, etc.

With the evolution of 12 micron 384 cores and thermal software improvements I found that they give me plenty of detail for shot placement. If you shoot longer ranges you also get a higher native magnification with a 384 core vs a 640 core using the same lens and lens size is a large cost component. I enjoy my time hunting more too since I can see more detail of everything I am viewing with a higher resolution scanner the entire time I am out in the woods. It also saves me the hassle of getting the rifle out and having to use that scope to ID the target as viable or not numerous times.

Like many other aspects of hunting it depends on your style and quarry so in the end it boils down to personal preference. IMO, probably the most versatile unit would be one of the new dual lens scanners with a 640 core. That way you get to "zoom" with the native resolution of the core and not have the pixel degradation associated with electronic zoom and you have a dual FOV choice for different hunting ranges.

Gook luck with your decision.
 
Last edited:
i like the "cool" factor of having a thermal scanner and thermal scope.

no one knows you're out there, standing in complete darkness being able to see like its daytime. there are no red lights scanning the fields, no red lights spooking the prey if they are turned up to high, etc...

and nothing to alert the fox or coyote to your position until you fire the shot
 
Infidel 762 said:
Absolutely 100% worth it. For a time, I was scanning with 384 and shooting with 640. Some stands I point my rifle where I think they will come from and start recording and then begin calling. Video after video I watch the 640 clearly record coyotes well before I was picking them up in my 384 scanner. Your biggest advantage night hunting is your ability to see with your scanner, I will never cut corners again in that aspect.
Click to expand...

My style is to scan for coyotes that are far out, and then as they approach and get closer, I switch to my rifle thermal. For this, I want better resolution to see further out. I also spend a lot more time on my scanner. Then the rifle on tripod helps to compensate for the resolution loss, since I cannot hold the scanner as steady. My distances here in Nevada are VERY far. Many times I detect out to 800 yards plus. The 640 resolution is critical at that stage.
 
bohunr said:
i like the "cool" factor of having a thermal scanner and thermal scope.

no one knows you're out there, standing in complete darkness being able to see like its daytime. there are no red lights scanning the fields, no red lights spooking the prey if they are turned up to high, etc...

and nothing to alert the fox or coyote to your position until you fire the shot
Click to expand...
Don't you know it brother. I had a coyote about 55 yards away and wanted it to stop, so I growled. The thing jumped up into the air and turned around to look behind it. Well, it was one broadside for another. One shot and it was out. They just never know what hit'em.
 
Back
Top