Do I need a laser range finder on a thermal scope?
I'm getting close to pulling the trigger and buying a thermal scope. I have borrowed one from a buddy (Rattler 35) and did notice how hard it was to judge any distance. But do I need it? Part of me says that with a good zero I should be able to point and click out to 250 yards so ranging is fun but not needed.

I'm torn, because the cost increase with the LRF could also pay for an upgraded scope.

This will go on an AR 10 and AR 15. I doubt I will put it on a bolt action but it's possible it might get used there some. Calibers will be .223, 6.8, 6.5, and .308.

Thoughts and suggestions all appreciated!

Scott

Better to have and not need than to need and not have….

LRF adds 400 to 1000 depending on the manufacture

Maybe buy a used one that has a transferable warranty to make it happen at your price point

Or

Sign up for a cash rewards credit card - the cost of the thermal should certainly activate the cash bonus which may cover the LRF

Currently I am using the Bering Optics Super Yoter. I get to get out at least 3 to 4 nights per month, sometimes more to use mine, and hunt year 'round. Since December I have had 3 instances where having an LRF and a known distance might have well resulted in game recovery. I absolutely hate losing quarry.

Most assuredly, If and when my desire for a Thermal Optic with that feature overcomes my "pain threshold" I will avail myself of a unit that has the LRF incorporated.

Yowsir!

GWB

I have a Pulsar X38 LRF...my next one will have a range finder. As you are aware, you lose all depth perception in the dark...when we stalk pigs it's valuable to me to know how close you are getting.

I’ll take the other side. My lease is very scrubby , so hunting over feeders is more practical than scouting, spotting, and sneaking. A 50 yard zero is basically point and shoot out to 200, and maybe 98% of my shot opportunities are at 80 yards or less. I think the rangefinders are only useful if you are hunting open country or agricultural fields. It’s all about where you hunt.

We went out Sunday night yote and pig hunting. My buddy has a LRF on his thermal, and it does help. We night hunt with 2 methods- We'll set up and call for yotes at a fixed spot, or spot the pigs and stalk to them in the fields. But when we set up, we generally have time to find our location on GPS and map out in the field we are in using the "measure distance" on the maps. This works out good for tree lines and such. When we stalk up on the pigs, we generally get to within 75-100 yards, or closer. I shot one Sunday night from about 100 yards stalking up on it. I don't need a LRF for those. The black out had a good night Sunday!!

Calibers will be .223, 6.8, 6.5, and .308. Range drop will be minimal at the range the thermal is used. Only one brand has a constantly 'on' LRF, others you gotta push a button,about as disturbing as pushing a button for pic or vid when you should be shooting. And batt life will be reduced.
If hunting a feeder, range should be known before hand. If stalking, you really want to push buttons when you only got a few seconds to make a shot?
Get a stand alone LRF if you think you need one. Learn to mentally calculate range - before the hunt. Like with any scope, depth perception is one-eyed - aka poor. But SIZE isn't.

Like many, I hunt feeders or water troughs at known distances, 70, 120 and 160 yds.

So if the critter I shoot is DRT under the feeder, no problem.

But what happens when you have a target of opportunity, say a fox, coyote, bobcat or coon between where you are and your feeder or known reference point, you shoot, you know you hit, but the animal is not DRT and takes off. You see the direction he went, but without depth perception you really do not know if the was the point of impact was 40, 50, 60 yds or further. So where do you start looking for blood. Well guess what, you have only a guess via landmarks you see through your thermal if you think to reference said landmarks before you shoot. My stride is 30" I can figure distance based on that converted to yds. I am not saying an LRF is a necessity. However I am saying the next Thermal unit I purchase will have a LRF incorporated.

ya!

GWB

Fair point, GW. My thermal is at its best to maybe 125 yards, call it 150 on a good size hog. I had a badly wounded hog go down in front of a bush at maybe 175 yards. It was visible in my spotter, so I could locate it, but I wasn’t really in a situation where I could make a confident shot. A better thermal unit with the lrf would have made a follow up easier. Instead, I walked up and just used a flashlight, so things worked out, but only because the hog was hit so hard by the first shot. Heck, if we are spending other people’s money, I think everyone should just go with the N-Vision XRF and be done with it.

Ya, I'm using my Super Hogster as a spotter. With a 3x base magnification it does not work great for tracking up close in heavy cover. I need to get off the dime and acquire a spotter with a 1x magnification or somehting there about for tracking.

GWB

To me the question is a real conundrum. It IS difficult to guess the range of hogs, especially because they come in all sizes. Without a range finder or at least objects of known distance nearby, it's all a guessing game. And like Geedub says, recovery can become problematic because of the guessing, even in the middle of a large wheat field. As far as hitting the animal goes, identification comes first and it seems to me that if an animal is far enough to require holdover then it's far enough away to make primary identification difficult. Having watched how different animals behave for a few years I can usually tell when I'm looking at hogs using various visual cues, but I'm still reluctant to shoot until I've verified that the critter doesn't have a long neck or a square rump. For that reason I just can't really justify the added expense of a range finder feature without also paying for much higher resolution. In my case it's not making a lot of difference anyway because of the terrain and size of the parcel I hunt, and the methods we use. I guess it just boils down to specific situations and circumstances, but buying the best you can swing just seems to make the most sense, and then you make do with what you've got.

The aforementioned troublesome hog:

Yowsir!

I try to place my shots about two inches below the ear on a line between the ear and shoulder. It may not be the most humane shot as they are dead and don't know it, but they drop and paddle, but do not go anywhere.



ya!

GWB

Thanks for the input folks!
I've pretty much talked myself out of a LRF equipped thermal. I'm thinking I'll put the difference into resolution instead. Looks like right now I'm planning on th AGM Adder 35-640.

On the Pulsar it’s one button you push twice…yes, when stalking I’ll gladly push the button twice for the data it provides. When stalking the only time you have seconds is if you’ve screwed up and blown the stalk…most of the time you have all the time in the world and if you’re lucky they will feed into you almost to the point you could kick them.

I do agree if you hunt a feeder, probably not something that’s worthwhile.

Mine does not but doing it over I would get one, it sure helps

I wouldn’t own one without LRF. I use mine mostly for coyotes and find the LRF invaluable at making accurate shots.

Yeah, hunting a new property where I don't know the distances yet, no LRF on the rifle, 2:00 am, trying to decide if that is a 150 lb boar at 150 yards or a 300 lb boar at 300 yards.

You’re welcome

And I don’t understand the math behind your LRF versus resolution choice

To me they are two totally different specs , you don’t typically sacrifice one for the other

Let me explain

If you liked your friends Rattler scope in 384 (35mm) lens that’s $ 2495

Your LRF choice would raise the cost to $ 2995 for the 384 (35mm) Varmint LRF model

Your “upgraded resolution” choice 640 (35mm) Adder scope is $ 3695

So you talked yourself into paying $ 1k more for resolution and completing stepping over an LRF that was $ 500 more than the basic model….

Again not really a one or the other type decision process

I have a Burris thermal and like it, but it does not have a rangefinder. I think it comes down to your caliber choices and MPBR/how you set your zero, as well as your hunting style. If you're hunting over a feeder of a known distance, then it's not needed. If you're spot and stalking or hunting in an an Ag field with no range markers, then it's very nice to have rangefinding capabilities.

MPBR is finding your tolerance for hitting high or low of your POA and then figuring out how far out you can shoot without adjusting your aim. A flatter shooting cartridge is beneficial for that. I shoot a 450 BM with my thermal and it is definitely a bad choice for that style of aiming. Oh well.

The OP opines in regards to "need".

No, one does not "need" to hunt at night. One does not "need" night vision, one does not "need" thermal optics and one does not need ranging capabilities in a thermal optic.

I started with spotlights with red lenses in the early 70's. I got my first kill light in the mid 2000's, and then feeder lights. Fast forward a few years, then night vision. ATN HD II, then 4KPro. When the Flir PST 233 came out I jumped on it. Bering Super Hogster, then to Super Yoter.

Next will be a unit with the LRF.

Why, because it enhances my capabilities and because I want it, I will figure out a way to afford it.

It has little or nothing to do with "need"

ya!

GWB

You're right, so let me explain my thoughts....
Having borrowed his Rattler and used it, I thought it was awesome. It was so far beyond the mounted red light and 3-9x40 I had it wasn't even close. It was also far and away better than the digital night vision scope with illuminator that my son had bought. After using it I was determined to get a thermal of my own. Fast forward a bit, youngest son has graduated college and now has a job which means I don't have to pay his tuition or his rent and groceries. The ability to afford it is here with a little saving for a short time and now I ask myself what do I want...what I want is better resolution than I saw in his Rattler. Do I need more resolution? probably not. But as GWB said above it's not about need.

My buddy with the Rattler is the one who advised me to get a LRF, because he wants one. I admit distance is hard to determine looking through a thermal, but it's not impossible. Honestly I never really thought I "needed" a LRF. I have a range at home and shoot often. I'm comfortable using a zero where I know the over and under out to a known range which should be about 250 yds. With that it's point and click, I don't have to worry about the drop. At that point really all I have to worry about is recognizing where 250 yds or more is in the scope. I don't care what the range is if it's less than that.

I did call one of the Texas AGM dealers and one of the guys was good enough to call me back. We talked, he asked questions, I told him my situation. Basically he thought I would be happy without a LRF. I'm not gonna lie, I thought that all along but wanted to make sure I"m not missing something. At that point, disregarding anything with a LRF, it was a question of what is my budget and what is the 'best' thermal I could get at that point.

I think the Adder is more than I 'need' right now. But like any consumer electronic I try to buy 'as much as I can afford". The $1K price increase buys resolution and in this case wider field of view at base mag with the ability to go up and still have usable picture quality at higher magnification. It also buys a platform that I can use on both an AR style and a bolt gun as the desire strikes. In addition, it buys over 10 hours of battery time.

I think that's a great choice and solid reasoning. I have the Adder TS35-384 and I think the extra resolution at 640 would be nice, but 384 seems to be very usable for what, where and how I'm hunting. I'm not sure just exactly what my positive identification distance is (maybe I should go to the trouble to find out), but I suspect it's somewhere close to a usable MPBR for my rifle which is chambered in .260 Remington. I think my Pulsar XQ30 may have had sightly better image quality, but it's my nephew's scope now so no matter. I like the ergos of the AGM enough that any image quality I've sacrificed won't matter much at all (there are just too many buttons on the Pulsar to suit me). I really like the extended battery life of the Adder also. I think it's a great scope and I think you'll like yours too.

I might do a little comparison between the new Adder and the old Pulsar next time I'm out at the ranch, and see if I can establish a max positive ID range for the Adder while I'm at it. That's something I really should know.

Remember, the resolution of the digital scopes decreases with zoom. Also, the focus seems to have less depth of field.

My next will have LRF.