MK3 or REAP IR?

[Rookie]

I've seen comparisons between the MK2, the MK3 60mm, but not the MK3 35mm.

So, between the MK3 35mm and the REAP IR, which one and why?

Here's what I think I've found...

Lighter - advantage REAP

Upgradeable - advantage MK3.

I almost ordered a MK3 last night, but now I'm second guessing myself. Help!!!

 

[Rookie]

Also, will either model be easier or harder to use as a lefty?

 

[Hard_ware]

Beside weight, other factors to consider.
Joystick control or turrets? That will decide which one, or
possible helmet mount or only rifle mounted/handheld? another deciding factor.

Once you narrow down how you are going to use it then you will know what to get.
Either choice will deliver great image quality.

 

[Rookie]

Joystick or turret - for me it doesn't matter. I've never used either so I don't think it would be a deciding factor.

Helmet mounting - I don't think I'll ever do that.

 

[Brian Shaffer]

Rookie, it very well may matter whether it is a joystick or a turret. In my experience dealing with potential buyers and those who have bought either of the scopes, by and large the joystick (aka "thumbstick") is decidedly harder to learn to use, is often disliked, and when it comes to complaints between the two for ergonomics, most complaints are with the joystick. Don't get me wrong. Some people absolutely love them. I can't say I have heard anybody say that about the turrets. The turrets are what people adapt to most readily in my experience...I can teach a person to use the turrets in about 30 seconds and the joystick takes longer because the menu system is more complicated because of the way inputs are made to it. Put another way, until they learn the system, people get lost in the menu using the joystick, but don't seem to do so with the turrets. The turret-based menu system is probably among the easiest to learn of any of the current commercial scopes/

The turrets are no harder to use for a lefty than a righty. The joystick seems to favor lefties.

So, how far do you typically shoot and what are your shortest distances and longest distances that you shoot. Any of the three will likely work for you, the MKIII 60mm be better if you are doing longer distance shooting on a regular basis.

 

[WhoCares]

The Reap is the lightest you mentioned and that is the only advantage I see with it. I have both the Mark iii 35mm and also a 60mm. The turrets are easy to use, it’s heavier than the Reap, I think the 60mm has a brighter and clearer picture than the 35mm unit but also less field of view. I much prefer the 60mm for shots 50 yds and further but you can still see your target at 10 yds it’s just a bit blurry. you should probably have a 1x monocular to scan with as scanning with the 60mm is tiresome. The 35mm is the best of both worlds with A greater fov for shooting large sounders. The 60mm is better for single targets like coyotes, single boars and varmints.

Watch the Carpe Sus videos on this site or YouTube to see what a 60mm looks like. That’s mainly what he uses.

 

[Rookie]

Typical shots are within 50-100 yards. Frankly, 100 yard shots are almost non existent considering I've been hunting with red lights. I like to be able to clearly see my target and what's behind it, so I'm very hesitant to make long shots.

 

[WhoCares]

I too once used red lights, this will be a different world. I started with the IR 35mm and felt my targets weren’t as well defined as I would like them to be. Detection and killing was fine as IR has the best 12 micron cores at the moment, but just was not as detailed as what I wanted. With my eyes I was having to constantly go to 2x digital zoom (5x) and up and the target would get bigger but noticeably lest sharp. Once I went to the 60mm lense at 4.5x optical everything I was looking for became much better, mainly clarity and high definition of the targets. Lots of people swear by the 35mm because of the 12 degree FOV, and I agree with them on that, especially if shooting at large sounders with pig running in multiple directions. Me? I shoot mainly lone boars, coyotes, and varmints at 50 to 100 yards but the scope could easily work out to 300-400 as I have shot targets at those ranges just haven’t had the opportunity to kill an animal that far.

You can also rent these at Ultimate Night Vision and try them out first.

 

[Rookie]

I'm going to order the MK3 35mm on Monday. I figure I can upgrade to the 60mm if I want more distance. I'm pretty sure I got a deal that can't be beat.

Thanks for everyone's input.

 

[robininni]

I am considering an MK III 60mm. It sounds like with the 12 micron, 640 x 480 resolution imager, they are ahead of the game in pristine views (details). I think I read that the next Armasights to come out will have a 12 micron imager and, I assume, the same 640 x 512 pixel array they are using now? So they won't out do the Trijicon IR Hunter, maybe just match it right?

 

[wigwamitus]

... . In my experience dealing with potential buyers and those who have bought either of the scopes, by and large the joystick (aka "thumbstick") is decidedly harder to learn to use, is often disliked, and when it comes to complaints between the two for ergonomics, most complaints are with the joystick. Don't get me wrong. Some people absolutely love them. I can't say I have heard anybody say that about the turrets. The turrets are what people adapt to most readily in my experience ...

Agree agree agree ...

I got turret unit 19 months ago and for most common functions (nuc, brightness, pallet, zoom) it is muscle memory now .. including switching between the menus. I was told I would hate the turrets, but I did not, do not. I spent three months with a joystick unit and never got to the muscle memory stage ... and did feel some frustration. I am sure it is possible to get comfortable with the joystick if you use it for 19 months, so based on that "belief" I would rate them equally, but agree with Brian, the turret system is easier to learn.

And BTW, I never had the "menu freeze" problem that some people have complained of with the turret system. My unit started as a Mk2 35mm and is now upgraded to a mk3 35mm ... might upgrade to 60mm one day, but not wanting to give up the FOV of the 35mm for now.

 

[Bocephus]

What the difference between the MK2 and 3?

 

[WhoCares]

Software differences

 

[wigwamitus]

From a hardwear perspective ... the mk2 comes in 19mm and 35mm focal length the mk3 comes in 35mm or 60mm focal length.
The mk2 has a 1 lever larue mount, the mk3 has a 2 lever mount.
The mk3 comes with the extended battery cap, allowing 3 batts vs 2 without the batt cap.
I think that is it for the hardware diffs.

On the software side, the mk3 adds some annoying pop ups that tell you to nuc ... (i would pay extra to get those gone) ... and there is a manual sort of a range finder thingy ... two more reticles (I use one of the originals as least busy) ... and maybe 1-2 other software functions I can't recall.
So ability to upgrade to the 60mm focal length lens ... and a few software enhancements ... that's about it ...
Oh and maybe ability to say it is a mk3, which might help mitigate depreciation a little.

Net/net, from a functional and bang for the buck perspective, the mk2 is the way to go in my book ...

 

[Bocephus]

Appreciate the info. Image wise, are they the same? Comparing a 35 to 35 of course. I guess throw the Reap into that question as well?


Sold my ATN, and trying to figure out if I should wait on the new Armasights, or get a Trijicon. Also wondering if the release of the Armasight will put a hurt on the used values of the Trijicons.

 

[wigwamitus]

I am told all the BAE cores are the same ... whether IRD/TEO or BAE itself ... but the lens and displays can be different from model to model.
From mk2 35mm to mk3 35mm the lens are not different, the displays are not different.
I had a SNIPE for 3 months and I could not tell image difference. Some say the REAP objective lens is different, so it might have a different image. Objective on SNIPE and REAP should be same ... rear lens are different .

 

[wigwamitus]

... Image wise, are they the same? ...

Also note that for me "image wise" is not a linear concept ... some core/software/lens combinations seem to be more tuned towards optimizing hot spot detection (critter detection) ... like the FLIRs ... whereas others like the BAE seem to "smooth things out" ... and give a better rendering of the terrain. Which one of these is "best" might depend on the beholder.
I have both BAE cored and FLIR cored devices and like both (and have a Pulsar also and like it as well).

 

[Bocephus]

Appreciate the info bud. That helps.

 

[Rookie]

Got my thermal!
First impressions...
1. The picture is amazing.
2. The rubber eye piece sucks. I moved the scope back as far as I can, and it's still too far forward to use the eye piece. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I can't get a comfortable cheek weld with it.

 

[Rookie]

Second impression...

The scope sits to low on my ar rail. What are my options?