New Ultra-Compact Thermal Weapon Sights!

N

NGI_TOM

New member
Bering Optics HOGSTER R™ VOx 384×288 Ultra-Compact Thermal Weapon Sights are aimed at the growing feral swine market. The sight is exceptionally lightweight, compact and .308 Cal. tested. HOGSTER R™ can be quickly mounted on any type of rifles equipped with Weaver/Picatinny Rails using a tactical quick release QR mounting system, making the set up process quick and easy. Due to the compact nature of the HOGSTER R™, it can be used as a handheld scanner as well.



The HOGSTERs are built with the superb Germanium optics that is paired with an advanced Vanadium Oxide (VOx) thermal core and proprietary electronics. Simple to use, the HOGSTER R™ features an intuitive user-friendly menu to customize settings to the shooter’s needs without disengaging from the target, including MIL-Dot and Crosshair reticles along with White, Black and Colored polarization.

The scope is nitrogen-purged, is water-, dust- and shock-proof and is action ready in virtually any environment or light conditions including conditions when the environmental obscurants such as smoke, dust, haze, are present.









***Please Note two different models, available***



Bering Optics HOGSTER R, 35mm!

Bering Optics HOGSTER R, 25mm!
 
I liked this scope so much, I purchased one as soon as I was done testing it. This scope addresses so many of the wants/needs that I hear about on Predator Masters and other forums/groups.

1) Many hunters have been asking for an affordable quality thermal without all the bells and whistles.

2) I hear the comment all the time, I am looking for a thermal scope that can also be used a scanner.

The Hogster-R addresses both of these areas, and more.

Here is a quick video I did of the Hogster-R.


Some Strengths:
1) Very Compact
2) Good FOV
3) Good image even in high humidity
4) Affordable (compared to other options)
5) Built and Serviced in the US
6) Ease of operation
7) PIP
8) Multiple Zero profiles
9) Solid build quality
10) Good Base

The one spec some of you may look at and question is the temp rating. Bering Optics has only tested to 14 at this time but PM if you want the answer directly from Bering Optics as they are anticipating the temp rating will most likely be lower than Pulsar due to temp related design decisions. They are confident it will be rated much lower than 14, but the scope is so new, they haven't been able to guarantee below this rating. There is also an option for $225 to have them install a MILspec display that is certified to up to -40F (-40C).
 
Very cool. Looks like a great thermal at a reasonable price!

Would it be possible to get some comparison images of both the 25 and 35mm models while viewing the same target/animal?

Thinking maybe a side by side view of what both units look like through the viewer at a target at 50 and 100 yards. Not sure if thats possible but it would be great to see.
 

Very neat looking scope. Glad to see good field of view with those models, not to mention a good price tag. Looking forward to hearing more about this optic as it sees more use in the field.

 
Originally Posted By: NGI_TOMWe can certainly try. Korey and I will put our heads together and see what we can come up with. Thanks!

That would be awesome. Am curious how difficult it would be to distinguish between a fox and a yote at 50 and 100 yards.
 
Originally Posted By: Burnsome...Originally Posted By: NGI_TOMWe can certainly try. Korey and I will put our heads together and see what we can come up with. Thanks!
That would be awesome. Am curious how difficult it would be to distinguish between a fox and a yote at 50 and 100 yards. As Tom said we will see what we can do as far as comparison videos. On the 35mm compared to the 25mm, it depends on how much FOV you want. The 35mm will deal with high humidity better and have 2.x native mag, while the 25mm will have a wider FOV and 1.4x native mag. I only have the 35mm at this time.

As far as IDing fox vs coyote, there is always a danger with any thermal of mistaking a large fox for a small coyote. If you have a long time to study the animal, it is probably OK. When it comes to a split second decision, and the animal is facing you especially, it can be hard with any thermal.

We have no restriction on fox in my state but I typically give them a free pass. I had a few situations last year where as I walked up to the coyote, it turned into a fox. In both situations, the fox was a very large male, and the part that was odd, was both came into coyote vocalizations, so I wasn't even thinking about a fox. These fox were taken with my FLIR PTS536 with a 4x native magnification. I can tell you that the background looks better on the Bering Optics Hogster 35mm in comparison to the Flir PTS536, but the animal detail is better on the Flir. If I couldn't tell on the Flir, there is a strong likelihood in these same situations I would not being able to tell on the Hogster. However, all of these animals were at 150 yards or greater. It really comes down to studying the animal and how it moves. I have mistaken a fox for a coyote with my Helion XP38 and that is 640 resolution as well. On the flip side, there have been numerous times where I new an animal was a fox, and let it go.

One additional feature of the Hogster that I have not mentioned is the scope includes a high humidity setting. It really helps with the image on those 90%+ humidity nights. After a rain event, I took it out and compared it to my Helion XP38, and it held it's own against a 640 core thermal in high humidity. That says a lot for a 384x288 thermal.
 

Korey,

Just wondering if by chance you have ever looked through a Pulsar Apex XQ38 that has a 2.1x base magnification? If so, I am wondering how it might compare to the Hogster 35mm with the 2.0x. I am specifically wondering about field of view, if the Hogster has greater fov. The two are similar in base mag. I know it's hard to make a comparison even if you have had experience with the Apex, and not have them both at the same time. I may be asking the impossible but thought I would throw it out there anyway.

 
I haven't used/looked through an Apex XQ38. However, I have owned the Trail XQ38. They share the same core. The view in the Hogster is similar to the quality I came to expect with the XQ38. However, as you said, unless you compare them at the same time with the same atmospheric conditions, it is hard to know for sure. From the time I've used the Hogster, it feels like it handles high humidity conditions better than the XQ38 series did but not 100% sure on that.

The advantages of the Hogster in comparison to the Apex would be:
1) Color Reticles
2) Color Palettes
3) Accepts CR123 rechargeables and non-proprietary battery pack
4) More compact
5) Better form factor if wanting to use as a scanner
6) QD mount
7) Assembled and serviced in the US
8) Faster Nuc process

As far as field of view, the Apex XQ38 is 12.4 x 9.3 in comparison to the Hogster-R 35mm at 10.7 x 8 and the 25mm at 14.9 x 11.2. It falls in the middle of the two.
 
Quote: One additional feature of the Hogster that I have not mentioned is the scope includes a high humidity setting. It really helps with the image on those 90%+ humidity nights. After a rain event, I took it out and compared it to my Helion XP38, and it held it's own against a 640 core thermal in high humidity. That says a lot for a 384x288 thermal.

That would certainly come in handy down this way in Georgia on those hot humid nights during the summer months.
 
Originally Posted By: devildoggDo you think a guy could mount that on a helmet? Dumb question I know but curious. Not a dumb question at all. I have been asking Tom from Night Goggles the same question. I’ve seen pictures of people mounting a RXQ30, so anything is possible. The weight would require a very heavy counter-balance. Tom said it would probably feel like your head was in a vise after an hour or so.

If a person wanted to try this, the bottom of the scope is a weaver/picatinny mount. It would require some MacGyvering to connect it to a Wilcox system.
 
I've had some PM users ask me how I compare the Hogster 35mm and the Flir PTS536 since I own both. I already talked about the differences in comparison to the Pulsar Apex/Trail XQ38, so I will post my comparison here as well to the PTS536.

PTS536:
1) Animal will have greater detail, so longer yardage Positive ID
2) Records video
3) Better selection of reticles
4) Longer thermal core warranty

Hogster:
1) Background image will look better
2) More than 2x the field of view
3) Can be used as a scanner
4) Has PIP
5) Buttons are easier to push and simpler layout

If you shoot mainly 50-150 yards, then the Hogster is probably the better choice. It isn't that it can't shoot past this with PIP and zoom but image will suffer. If you shoot 150+ yards a lot, then the Flir is the better choice.

One of the reasons I own both is I have my Hogster on my .17HMR. This is my rabbit, raccoon, misc gun and have my Flir PTS536 on my coyote gun. However, I also will use the Hogster as my backup scanner whenever someone comes hunting with me. The Flir PTS536 is not a good scanner but the Hogster is.
 
The Hogsters also address an issue I hear about a lot. Many users say they want a thermal device that is easy to operate. The buttons are easy to push and the Menu system is super easy to understand.
 
I don't have an external DVR for the Hogster, but found a video of someone who used the video out function of the Hogster-R and recorded some good quality video.

 
Originally Posted By: 6mm06Wow, detail is pretty good. I did notice the image bluring at times. Was that during NUC? 6mm06, I believe what you are seeing is the person recording the video is cycling through the Contrast Settings. If you look at the screen there are 4 contrast settings at the bottom and as they adjust them, the screen is changing. This is very different than how Pulsar does it. It makes the thermal very easy to use and adjust but it is not quite as customizable. There are 4 brightness settings and 4 contrast settings, and then the High Humidity option.

It has a very good image for a 384x288 core especially considering how compact it is. Also, keep in mind this is going through a DVR. Anyone who uses an external DVR can probably attest to the fact that DVRs really impact the quality of the video. On most thermals, the view through the eyepiece is considerably better than the recorded video. When recording to external DVRs, it is even more so.

From a NUC standpoint, I find the Pulsar NUC process to be very, very long at least on the Trail and the Helion. The Flir PTS NUC is so fast, you almost don't even notice it NUCs. The Hogster isn't as fast as the Flir but it is about 30% faster than the Pulsar NUC process. On the Flir and Bering Optics, the NUC process is all automatic. Some may not like that, but I do. Most Pulsars I have used allow for auto, semi-auto, or manual. Due to the very slow speed of their NUC, I can see why they have the option.
 
I peeked out my backdoor using the Hogster-R 35mm as a scanner, and then noticed a deer and 2 rabbits back there. The deer and rabbit are at about 70 yards. I then popped it on my gun, and switched it over to a weapon's site. I had a suppressor cover on and the reason there is that slight glow at the bottom of the rabbit videos. No kill shots on this video.

 
That 25 mm model might be a good replacement for my old hd19a to scan for coyotes. I'll be curious how yours holds up in those subzero Dakota temps, Kirsch.
 
It probably won't get weapon's action for coyotes a lot from me, but will get some scanner action. I record all my hunts for Night Goggles so that is why the Flir will stay on the main coyote gun. There is a video out option, but not as convenient as pressing a record button on scope and being done. I will let everyone know how it goes especially when I get a 25mm in for testing.

I believe the HD19a had a fov of 26.8 x 20.8. The Hogster 25mm is 14.9 x 11.2. This is still very good, but still less than the HD19a but should provide further detection and recognition. The 35mm is 10.7 x 8.0.

There is no way at this time to turn off the reticle. My hunting partner changed to a black color to blend in with the background and he said it was fine. I have provided feedback to Bering Optics on this, so hopefully there will be a no reticle or minimal reticle option in a future firmware update.

I do like it as a scanner, and as a bonus, it can be a weapon's site. I cut my eye cup down by about 70% to make it more conducive for scanning.
 
Back
Top