Bought my first thermal

Duhhh

Duhhh

Well-known member
Ok I made a spur of the moment purchase today and bought a AGM Varmiter V2 35-384. I wasn’t planning on it but the built in rangefinder kinda pushed me over the edge and I ended up getting it for $2400 (seemed to be the cheapest I could get it for).

I really have not done much research into thermals at all but I know the 384 isn’t the best compared to 640. I figure this will be something to get me into the game and see if I like it. I still need to get a scanner but for now I’m going to rough it and just use the scope to scan too.

I plan on trying to do a 200 yard zero and using my Tikka 22-250 in the KRG chassis.

My questions so far, should I be nuking manually or does it really matter? Do these tend to lose zero very easily? Anyone have this thermal and use it in very cold environments?
 
I would just NUC manually. If you have it set to auto, then they tend to NUC at the most inopportune times, like right before you are trying to execute a shot on a coyote. Lol
 
I haven’t had any issues with auto NUC but manual seems the way to go with the concerns on here.
I have the Rattler TS35 640 and still holding the same zero I sighted it in with. I do have a 384 scanner and I think you’ll be pleased with your purchase.
If you decide to upgrade to a 640, just use that scope as a scanner. I was doing it with the Rattler before I bought another rifle and suppressor, lol.
 
Thanks for the reply’s. I’ll do manual nukes. How often do you guys nuke?

This 3x seemed to me the sweet spot for the open areas I’ll be calling. However, I think I’ll be buying a scanner sooner than later.
 
I auto nuc and manually when needed. 3x 384 is where I was for 3 years and it works fine, I felt comfortable to 200 or a hair further. I only made it a bit over a month before I bought something to scan with, and went with a 1.5x 384 Hogster 25 for that purpose based on recommendations from a Bering prostaffer on here. I just listed both of those units on FB for sale as I now want to upgrade my scanner to match my new scope.
 
204 AR said:
I auto nuc and manually when needed. 3x 384 is where I was for 3 years and it works fine, I felt comfortable to 200 or a hair further. I only made it a bit over a month before I bought something to scan with, and went with a 1.5x 384 Hogster 25 for that purpose based on recommendations from a Bering prostaffer on here. I just listed both of those units on FB for sale as I now want to upgrade my scanner to match my new scope.
Click to expand...
You guys are gonna cost me some more money haha. I hope to get at least 3 years out of this thing.
 
I auto nuc and have for the 3 years running thermal. Tried manual and would forget to increase the frequency of doing it in high humidity too many times (which is often here) so just let 'it' do it.
 
Duhhh said:
You guys are gonna cost me some more money haha. I hope to get at least 3 years out of this thing.
Click to expand...
We've been down this same road. Spend the money on a scanner. Much, much, much.... easier to scan 180/360 around you, plus you're not pointing a rifle where you do not intend to shoot. I tried that remove the scope in the dark and put it back for a shot, no predator is going to just stand there and wait for someone to remount the unit

Simply put, cost is a relative term, money well spent or wish you would've after the fact.

When I bought my first thermal my kill ratio tripled at night! Regardless, Congratulations on your first, but I bet it want be your last LMAO
 
limbhanger10 was so fast using his thermal scope as a scanner then putting it back on the gun and killing coyotes, i thought he had two separate units :)

we both use thermal scanners and scopes

Duhhh, my scanner is a pulsar axion, its a 384 and on low humidity nights its very clear. that scope will serve you well

the thermal pics i post are from my axion
 
Just set everything up and kinda got a feel for it In the back yard. It’ll definitely be a learning curve but so far it’s pretty sweet. Was looking at some deer a little over 400 yards and I could identify decently. I’m gonna have to sell a rifle scope to buy a scanner sooner though.

Too bad because I feel like I just got my day time set up dialed in.
 
i was using red lights, then night vision, now i use the thermal scanner and a bering optics super yoter thermal scope. stand out in the pitch black and see everything like daytime just in black and white :)
 
Check you point of impacts at 50,100 and 150 yards, if you actually zeroed at 200 yards. Traditional day scopes your reticle remains at the same height above the bore, the angle of it changes to calibrate to the direction the bore is pointed. With digital you are changing the position(location) of the reticle on a display(screen). So a traditional trajectory graph will not accurately duplicate what the poi actually are.
 
spotstalkshoot said:
Check you point of impacts at 50,100 and 150 yards, if you actually zeroed at 200 yards. Traditional day scopes your reticle remains at the same height above the bore, the angle of it changes to calibrate to the direction the bore is pointed. With digital you are changing the position(location) of the reticle on a display(screen). So a traditional trajectory graph will not accurately duplicate what the poi actually are.
Click to expand...
Ok I’m a little confused now but maybe that explains why I initially had some issues. So I got on paper at 25 yards and made the corrections I thought needed. Then went to 200 yards and wasn’t on target at all. So I went back to 25 yards and did the following.

started at 25 yards knowing that I should be 1 inch low to be close at 200.

Then I went to 100 yards and shot a group, knowing I should be a little above 3/4 inches high. After shooting a group at 100, I was close to an inch high so the made an adjustment and brought the next shots down slightly. Then I moved it back to 200 yards.

At 200 I was hitting just slightly high about a half inch. The hand warmer I was using was difficult to see at that yardage but it was still minute of coyote.

I may need to confirm a little more precise with a better target at 200 yards though.
 
Duhhh said:
Ok I’m a little confused now but maybe that explains why I initially had some issues. So I got on paper at 25 yards and made the corrections I thought needed. Then went to 200 yards and wasn’t on target at all. So I went back to 25 yards and did the following.

started at 25 yards knowing that I should be 1 inch low to be close at 200.

Then I went to 100 yards and shot a group, knowing I should be a little above 3/4 inches high. After shooting a group at 100, I was close to an inch high so the made an adjustment and brought the next shots down slightly. Then I moved it back to 200 yards.

At 200 I was hitting just slightly high about a half inch. The hand warmer I was using was difficult to see at that yardage but it was still minute of coyote.

I may need to confirm a little more precise with a better target at 200 yards though.
Click to expand...
My Tikka is 1” high at 100 yds and on at 200 yds. I did a 50 yd zero once and that put me 1&1/2 “high at 100. I was 1/2” high at 200 using the 50yd zero approach. I’m shooting Hornady 55 gr Vmax and they shoot well. I like to zero at a distance of 50 yds because I feel like I can get more precise with the thermal this way. At 50yds if my windage is dead on then I know it’s going to be on at 100 yds. When I go to zero 1” high at 100 then all I worry at is elevation and not left-right. This works for me. I also use the aluminum HVAC tape for my target, I don’t like the blooming effect from the hand warmers.
 
Back
Top