ATN 336 3x & ATN 320 3.5x

[Aquatic_Robotic]

I picked up these two units late last night and have an opportunity to give them a very good trail tonight. First let me describe exactly what I have so there is no confusion.

# 1 - ATN Thor 336 3x, 30 Hz, 30 mm lens, 17 micron - recently discontinued "rental unit"

# 2 - ATN Thor 320 3.5 x, 60 Hz, 50 mm lens, 25 micron - NIB I opened it out of the shipping container

I had an opportunity to speak with a distributor who explained both of them very well. The older (1.5 years) unit 336 3X 30 Hz has been replaced with a 60 Hz unit and that is the only difference in the old model and the new model. The NIB box 320 3.5x 60 Hz is newer technology.

Both of these units have 336 processors, irrespective of the ATN assigned model 336 vs 320
There is about $1,000 difference in the retail price of the two newest version of each unit. Some of it is in the 30 vs 60 Hz, but most of it is in the 30mm vs 50 mm lens

What I will be looking for tonight in comparing the two units is;

detection range
positive ID range on deer vs hogs +any other game or livestock that we encounter
image quality, clarity
FOV
sighting in zero
game tracking performance - how do they perform when I am following a moving target
User friendliness should be the same as they are set up functionally the same, but in general I will also be looking at how simple they are to operate.

Hope to have a synopsis this weekend. I have no way to video with units so there will be no video for now. When I do purchase a unit, I will certainly get video capability.

I have narrowed it down to these two unless tonight shows me something negative that changes my mind. Anything else I should consider while comparing these two ATN Thor's?

 

[BigRedDog]

awesome, can't wait

 

[rgilbert]

The comparison will be interesting. I just wouldn't compare anything that was discontinued. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Brian Shaffer]

I have no issues with a unit being discontinued, but do have issues with not getting the full warranty and the fact that it was a 'rental' unit. No telling how much wear and tear on the unit or how it was treated, if it has been on a heavier recoiling rifle than for which it is rated.

$1000 off might cost you $2000 in hassles.

 

[rob072770]

Totally agree with Brian.

 

[rgilbert]

I did not word that last comment correctly. What I mean is, if you are looking just for yourself that is fine. If you were trying to post a comparison for the other members, I would not do a discontinued unit.

 

[Terry]

Technology wise the 336 17 micron core should require less lens size vs the 336 25 micro to both get 3X magification. That said I would also be curious to see if you can tell much difference between the two plus if the 50mm is alittle better performance wise does that out weigh the increased size and weight the 50mm lens adds to the scope vs the 30mm lens which is very compact/less overall weight? My hunting buddy has the new 336 4.5X model and I have the 336 30mm 3X. Both 60hz and good scopes we are real happy with their performance.

 

[Aquatic_Robotic]

I am not sure what happened to my post, but I had it 90% complete and it just disappeared. That was about 30 minutes worth of thought and typing just gone. Oh well, I think I can recall most of what was written.

First I did not realize the 336 3X 30 HZ was discontinued until the distributor told me that unit is now 60Hz. From my understanding that is the only difference in the old vs. new 336 3x 30mm. Although the 30 was a rental unit, it was in excellent condition it performed correctly during the few hours we used it.

Three of us had the thermals out in the field for about two hours. We were split on which one we liked the best. One was convinced he liked the 336 3x 30mm best. Myself and the other guy thought the 320 3.5x 50 mm performed best. I can't speak as to what the others thought was better, but I will give you my unbiased opinion. This is only the second time I have ever used thermal scopes, but I have tried to educated myself a great deal in the last few weeks.

Since I have already described what the units are I will refer to them as 30 (mm) and 50 (mm). We did not find any hogs but we did find about 50 deer, a handful of rabbits and 2 coons. We viewed them from 15-300+- yards. We came up on one field that had 37 deer in it from 50 to 200 yards. We spent about 45 minutes comparing as many aspects of the tw0 scopes as we could. I can tell you that it was difficult at times trying to keep the two units adjusted to accommodate the difference in all three guys vision. Neither of the other two gents has ever even looked through a thermal scope and my limited experience, in the dark, in the middle of the night, it was to say the least, very interesting at times. We did have a great time together and enjoyed the experience tremendously. We had a 19, 46 and 61 year old. Tons of difference in 19 and 61 year old eyes. BTW I have the 61 year old eyes. There was no problem with either unit making these adjustments, but it did take time to adjust the scopes so each guy could get optimal performance from each scope.

Again my uses for a thermal is to detect, identify and eliminate predators, varmints & vermin, as well as identify individual deer for census data. My hunting will be from 25-200 yards, but I need the ability to identify deer out to 300+ yards and distinguish between bucks, does and fawns. I do some deer management and census information is important. TPWD is now allowing some thermal imaging data to be used for whitetail census data collection.

First the screen on the 50 mm lens was much better than the 30. I viewed both during the day at 100 degrees and at night about 85-90 degrees and 95% humidity. The clarity of the 50 in both day and night conditions was much better than the 30. At distances out to 150-175 yards I didn't see a lot difference in the two for detection and identification. Once we got past 200 yards the 50mm outperformed the 30 for clarity and identification. It was very easy to distinguish bucks from does and the smaller fawns as well out to 300 yards with the 50. We came up on one feeder that had two deer under it and a raccoon at about 230-240 yards. With the 50 the raccoon was readily identifiable, but with the 30 you could tell there was a small animal there, but you could not tell if it was a rabbit, possum, raccoon, or ???.

For the distance we were finding animals there was really no difference in detection. The further you went beyond 200 yards there was a significant difference in identification, in my opinion. The 50 mm was superior in identification the greater the distance beyond 200 yards.

The 50 had a much better quality screen. For me, it was easier to get behind the 50 scope rapidly and acquire my target quicker than the 30. I had the scopes mounted on identical 300 blackout platforms with Thunderbeasts 30P-1 attached. The size and weight of the scopes was so close as to be not significantly different. The 50 weighs 4 ounces more than the 30 and is the same basic dimensions except the lens is larger. I feel the performance of the 50 outweighed any size or weight difference.

The 50 had a built in camera system that could be used to take and review pics in the field through the scope itself. These pics can also be downloaded. I used this feature a few times during the night and went back to review what we had been looking at. I did not have time to read the 50mm manual and there may be other features I am not aware of on the 50 that the 30 does not have.

These areas that I think the 50 was better than the 30.

better quality screen
better screen clarity
faster target acquisition
better identification as the distance increased beyond 200 yards

There is about $1,000 difference in the two scopes and for me, the 320 3.5x 50 mm lens gave me the performance I want for its intended use. It is worth the additional money based on my needs for a dedicated thermal scope. I have made a decision and a commitment to purchase the ATN Thor 320, 3.5x, 50 mm.

Once I have purchased the scope and received my recording system, I will record some video and still shots and post them as I can. Please bare in mind that is a review by a relatively thermal newbie. It was intended to determine which of these scopes would work best for me and compare the scopes based on my needs.



Thanks for the input and advise.

 

[FrankT]

Well done! Congrats!!

 

[Chopperdrvr]

Thank you very much for taking the time to do this. Your review is very helpful when thinking about a purchase this large.

 

[rob072770]

Nice looking rifle

 

[theblakester]

Thank you for writing this up

 

[BigRedDog]

looking forward to some videos

doesn't have to be hogs, could be anything anywhere