IR Hunter recoil rating

S

sigfla

LSB Member
I have a question. Both Trijicon and the old IR defense website show the optic on a 50 caliber. I have read through the Trijicon EO web material and cannot find a recoil rating. I know most sellers list it as rated for .308 max. My memory is pretty decent and I am almost sure I read somewhere (maybe the old IRD website) that the optic was rated for higher calibers. Seeing as how other thermal optics are rated for 50 cal I find it hard to believe that Trijicon is rated for only .308. I want to run mine on a .458 Socom using subsonics and occasionally on a bolt action .308 maybe. It just seems to me that if the rating is only .308 Trijicon needs to up their game for the $$ or maybe it truly is a higher rating. I know the IRD models had different features so I don't know what carried over to TEO but again .308 sounds so light for such a rugged unit.
 
S

sigfla

LSB Member
I also just noticed Trijicon shows the optic mounted on a Nemo Arms 300 Win Mag AR as well. Doesn’t make sense to me. The minimum should at least be a .338 Win Mag rating
 
wigwamitus

wigwamitus

LSB Active Member
... both Trijicon and the old IR defense website show the optic on a 50 caliber ...
Click to expand...

I asked them about that on the phone ... they said it was a .416 not a .50 :)

But insisted the "official" rating was still ".308" even though they'd tried it on other weapons.

==
The "inline" battery compartment has emerged as a weakness ... I've suffered from it a bit ... and heard from plenty of others who have as well. Maybe there is a reason most of the military thermals don't have the "inline" battery compartments.
 
S

sigfla

LSB Member
Can’t argue the performance of the unit but that’s poor design and/or marketing. It probably wouldn’t take much to fix the inline battery issue and if they advertise the unit on other calibers they should stand by it. Especially since they appear to give no listed recoil rating in print. It’s tough to shop for a unit and see the other brands rated for much higher calibers than the mighty trijicon. BTW that sure looks like a Barret 50 to me not that a 416 is any slouch
 
wigwamitus

wigwamitus

LSB Active Member
BTW, I'm not trying to say the inline battery design is THE cause of recoil rating ... but it is certainly a factor ...
 
S

sigfla

LSB Member
I understand. I am in no way downing the IR Hunter either. Just wondering what the deal is. I wish I had the archive of the old IRD web site. It had great info on the units.
 
Brian Shaffer

Brian Shaffer

Hog Hunter
SUS VENATOR CLUB
LoneStarBoars Supporter
wigwamitus said:
==
The "inline" battery compartment has emerged as a weakness ... I've suffered from it a bit ... and heard from plenty of others who have as well. Maybe there is a reason most of the military thermals don't have the "inline" battery compartments.
Click to expand...

This does not surprise me. When I did the initial review back in June 2014, I noted several issues with the battery compartment as did a former member here...
IR Hunter 320, 2x, 19mm Review | Lone Star Boars

Brian Shaffer said:
6. Changing batteries is a b____ (problem) even with the unit not on a rifle. The spring tension and little screw cap are not terribly user-friendly. Trying to do it with gloves on is a nightmare. It can be done, but it took me multiple tries to get the cap back on...and I can only imagine what it would be like trying to do with freezing fingers in gloves or freezing fingers out of gloves.

Ben noticed on his scope that it was difficult or impossible to change the batteries with the scope mounted, something about a conflict with the mount. On the LaRue mount, it would appear that the lever may be in conflict with the video-out port. That will depend on the cable.

However, Ben was right. When mounted, the position of the battery compartment cap and the switch above it along with the scope body and barrel/mount rail is such that there are just barely two opposing cap surfaces to grasp in order to twist off the cap. So you can get fingers on opposite sides, but you can't turn the cap because travel is blocked by the switch, scope body, and barrel/rail. Combined with the heavy spring tension and the whole battery change becomes a nightmare in the field in the dark, especially if it is cold.
Click to expand...

Brian Shaffer said:
I suspect that changing the batteries is such a pain because for the scope to be able to maintain power during recoil, heavy duty springs are needed to assure electrical contact is maintained. This is a design flaw, IMHO. As this unit uses 2 CR123 batteries serially and the batteries are aligned lengthwise with the scope, they are subject to front-back recoil connection problems.
Click to expand...

I have overcome the battery changing issue by using an external battery.

Pulsar learned back in the day with the early Digisights that lengthwise serial alignment was hard on batteries and connectivity. The nipple of one battery would dimple the butt of the battery in front of it with higher recoiling rifles.

I got a phone call from _____ (have forgotten name now) at IR Defense about the review I did. He was not happy. He was particularly unhappy when I mentioned the battery compartment issues. He had apparently been the designer of it and he assured me that my concerns were unreasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top