TUSKIR384 Thermal Weapon Sight demonstration at over 1600 yards.

[video:youtube]Ro7Gznfsxlg[/video]

Competitors can talk all they want.. the performance of the NITEHOG TUSKIR384 speaks for itself.

that is an awesome scope

WOW!

Pretty impressive, now if only I could come up with $15,700 to get one.

Thanks guys!

@wall8053: Tactical Hog Control can help show you the light . They use our TUSKIR384 thermal weapon sight on all of their hog hunts. They also sell the TUSKIR384 on their webstore (better price too).

That Is Fricken Bad A$$!

Thats awsome

So could anyone actually spot the cattle prior to the thermal images?

WOW, nice video demo. We could make good use of that product when locating fleeing fugitives.

i want it

I want one.

Yes

Easy to see if you look

Buying the T60 Trijicon/ FLIR 640 X 480 resolution next week..


They just became available for the civilian market but not many left. They have increased the resolution to almost double from what i have heard and have unloaded these on the civilian market. Raytheon has done the same thing w/ theirs as well.

I don't doubt the product, but the demo didn't show the same scenes between the cattle and the thermal and so I am not sure what is being seen in the therm and in the regular images. Stranglely, the thermal cattle are much larger and group much differently. In short, you are looking at two different images.

The product may be great, but the ad is lacking.

So is the price really 15K??

too cool!

very nice product but.....not affordable to the masses.

Really cool scope. The ability for on board capture of 200 images is nice. That's a feature that most other thermal scope manufacturers don't have from what I have seen.

Wow

do want! im gonna start saving now, see you in a few years.

now thats nice!

In a few years it'll be obsolete and the new one will be $50.

If you send me a sample I will post nice things about it on several forums as a thank you! Win-Win type of thing

neat

Sure, when you zoomed just like with the thermal image (well toward the end of the video), they were clearly seen in your video. No problem.

I am afraid you have misrepresented the performance in the formation of the query. Being thermal isn't what made the difference. The non-thermal image you wanted us to compare with the thermal image has no magnification. The thermal image is obviously quite magnified as it does not actually show the same scenery in the same scale as the unmagnified image. I noticed you didn't have a 1x thermal image. I guess the scope won't do that. As such, you should not compare it to the 1x normal eye.

Contrary to the video, the original image is zoomed as indicated by the reduced field of few and the objects in the field being much larger than in the original unzoomed, non thermal image. So when you change to the thermal image, it is zoomed at least 3 times as per your video as when you go to 2x on the thermal, you note that it equates with 6x in daylight.

Of course using white hot, the cows appear white on a dark background and have the additional benefit of appearing to glow and hence appearing larger than actual size, something akin to reticle bloom where the red dot reticle at a the same setting in daylight blooms significantly in low light situations at the same setting because it is too much light for the lighting conditions and background.

So could I see the cows with the thermal scope? I dunno. I could not identify them as cows. I saw greatly magnified white blobs. You said you could identify them based on their features. I would be hard pressed from what I saw in the video to be able to say those were definitely cows. For all I know, they were bison, hogzillas, or some other large animals. In the video, I could never identify any of the blobs as having legs.

BTW, when you screen shot save the images between the regular image and the thermal image, the information for the cattle in the regular image is not present. You don't see cows in the regular image because either the camera recording them or the Youtube playback isn't actually of a sufficient resoltion to show them. In other words, the cattle either were not recorded or are not actually being displayed, being so small (unmagnified) as to being lost in the pixels. As such, a comparison with a magnified image where the cattle are larger than the pixels isn't a valid comparison.

In short, you have biased the display considerably the in favor of your product, first in the comparison in magnified v. unmagnified imagery, second, in providing identifications for the cattle that are not actually identifiable as anything other than blobs, and third, in asking if we can see that which isn't actually displayed in the non-thermal image.

So at the end of the video, when you optically zoomed the non-thermal image comparably, the cows became magically visible, much like they were magically visible in the zoomed thermal image, only without the reticle bloom. In other words, your "normal eye" comparison with your thermal scope is bogus. The "normal eye" doesn't even turn out to be any good against a non-thermal magnified image that you provided.

I am sure your optic is quite nice, quite expensive, but your comparison isn't valid.