tbannister
New Member
Im looking for guidance on the optic to go with, and I can't find a direct comparison. Any insight is appreciated.
Help me choose Reap-IR VS Mark III Hunter
- Thread starter tbannister
- Start date
Contact ******** with *******************. He is a vendor on this site.
I use the MKIII 35 and the XR 60 scanner.
Between the REAP-IR and the IR Hunter MKIII 35mm, I think the REAP-IR is a much better option. The IR Hunter MKIII 35mm and the REAP-IR both sell for $7495 and are virtually identical in function, features, and image quality. Both units use the same BAE 12 micron 640X480 sensor and OLED display. They both use a 35mm objective lens providing 2.5X native magnification. Both have digital position read-outs for windage and elevation, the ability to store multiple zeroes, and the stadiametric rangefinder. Also, both units have quality quick detach mounts that will return to zero when removed and remounted on a rifle.
The main difference is that REAP-IR is smaller and lighter than the MKIII 35mm (20.8oz vs. 34oz) and is more versatile (Helmet-mountable, handheld, weapon mountable) than the MKIII.
Between the REAP-IR and the MK3 60mm, there are a few differences that could make one unit a better fit for you depending on your intended use.
The MK3 60mm has 4.5X optical magnification and 7-degree field of view vs. the REAP, which has a 35mm lens (2.5X optical magnification) and 12-degree field of view. This means that the MK3 60mm will provide some additional range for scanning and shooting at longer distances, however both units are capable of detecting animals beyond 1 mile. The REAP-IR has a wider field of view, which is helpful for scanning at closer ranges and shooting animals on the run. Also, the REAP-IR is smaller and lighter than the MK3 60mm (20.8oz vs. 37oz) and is more versatile (Helmet-mountable, handheld, weapon mountable) than the MK3 60mm.
tbannister
New Member
Thank you!
I don't have that much time in with my REAP just yet, but I can tell ya for my heavily wooded area I don't want any more than the 2.5x native for a minimum magnification. I've seen where less would have been even better. Can't say I've ever laid eyes on a MkIII. But I think I'm glad I got the smaller unit. With all the crap that ends up on a night rig, anything that saves weight/bulk is a good thing.
d:^) Jake..