Where are Bering Optics (Hogster) Assembled?

Kirsch

Active member
There have been some threads or posts indicting that there are other look-alike scopes to the Bering Optics Hogster being sold by other companies. Some have been so bold as to call it a Chinese Built Scope. The Hogster is assembled in the US from internationally sourced parts and components and is tested, optimized, and serviced in the US.

What Type OF Core Is In The Hogster: The core is actually built by a company called IRAY. Bering Optics teamed up with IRAY where they built the core, and Bering Optics worked on the firmware, software, and base to make a reliable and affordable thermal scope platform. Other companies have access to the IRAY core as well, but not the Bering Optics unique pieces.

Bering Optics uses VOX (Vanadium Oxide) cores from IRAY for the Hogster and from Flir for the Beast-R. For instance, the Ulis (French) core used by Pulsar is silicon based. Boris indicated his preference towards the reliability of VOX based thermal cores especially for hunting.

Why Are There Other Scopes That Look Like The Hogster: It costs a lot of money to produce molds for a thermal scope. Bering Optics worked with an external vendor to produce these molds. They can be used by other companies as well. These companies will not have the proprietary Bering Optics software or any of the optimizations they have done to integrate to the core.

Why Are The Hogsters Just Being released In The US, When Other Companies Have Similar Looking Thermals On The Market. Bering Optics spent the last 1.5 years, testing and optimizing this US assembled scope to verify the product is reliable, affordable and simple to use.

What Is Unique About The Hogster. The things that are unique are under-the-covers from these other look-alikes. This is from Boris, the owner of Bering Optics. The Hogster undergoes its final assembly in the US from the internationally sourced parts and components originating from Estonia, China, Ukraine, however every part was vetted. The Bering Optics scopes assembled with the US origin metal hardware which includes a QR mount that allows taking the scope down and using it as a scanner and then putting it back without losing a zero. There is also the Bering Optics firmware as well as a number of procedures we perform for each scope including the "black body" test and adjustment, which allows to increase the core productivity up to 15-20% as well as a test on the optical bench precisely aligning the optical axis with the mount before shipping the product out.

Warranty: This is very exciting. Boris informed me Bering Optics will be moving from a 2 year warranty on the Hogster to a 4 year warranty. This is being announced at Shot Show. This will not only apply to new customers, but extend to any existing Hogster customers.

Business Future: I had heard from a few people they were worried about the future as they don't know a lot about Bering Optics. Boris said, his company is not going away any time soon. He mentioned they actually service some night vision brands that have gone out of business. He said be confident Bering Optics will still be here for more than another decade.

The bottom line is do you want to buy a thermal which will have one of the best warranties in the business (4 years), from a company that tests their products for more than 1 year to make sure it is of the highest quality, releases products for affordable prices, and assembles, optimizes, supports and services their products in the US? If you do, it sounds like a Bering Optics thermal is in your future.
 
Vanadium oxide microbolometer are much different than amorphous silicon bolometers.

Personally, I would not own any amphorous silicon based microbolometer thermal kit....
 
Originally Posted By: case-nhSo, your saying; SkyPup, that Pulsar is not something you would care to own?
Since Pulsar utilizes amorphous silicon microbolometer in their thermals:

That is what I am saying.
thumbup1.gif
 
The discussion of Vanadium oxide microbolometer vs amorphous silicon bolometers gets pretty technical. If you are like me, as a coyote hunter you just want to know what's a good scanner to spot a coyote coming, and what's a good scope that I can use to put the reticle on a coyote and harvest it. If the VOX reference by Boris sent this thread down a rabbit hole, sorry. For those that want a deeper dive on the topic, check out Skypup’s link below.
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleUpIt's all above my pay grade. I did read that IRAY is listed as the parent company of X-infrared. This just confirms what I said in my post, yes it appears X-infrared and Bering Optics use the same thermal core for some of their scopes, and accounts for a lot of the similarities with the Hogster, but it isn't the same scope.

IRAY produced this core to be used in a lot of different devices. They apparently liked what they saw Bering Optics doing, and decided to build a similar thermal. Nvision and Trijicon both use BAE cores, but they are different scopes.
 

Well, for the money the Hogster appears to be a good candidate for a predator scope. I am looking forward to your test of the 25, Kirsch.
 
I ran a cold weather scenario on my Hogster-R 35mm this morning. This is not an official test or a stamp of approval by Bering Optics. The temp this morning was -16. I took the scope from the house, and placed it outside and turned it on. When I went back out to check it after about 5 minutes, I was a little concerned as there was some artifacts on the screen. I NUC'd it and they went away. I proceeded to check the scope every 5 minutes up to 52 minutes and the artifacts never showed back up and the scope worked. For me, a long stand would be 30 minutes plus maybe a 5 minute walk both directions would put me at 40 minutes. I went to 52 minutes just in case. The batteries didn't do very well at -16, but that is to be expected. In reality, this is probably twice as long as I would sit on a coyote stand in these kinds of temps but it still worked. One quick test doesn't certify anything, but it gives me more confidence in using it in colder temps.
 
Benefits of the Super vs. the 35??

Hunting the wide open out west. Don't necessarily care much about internal video.

Clarity?
Functionality?

I watched the youtube video of the 35 vs. super comparison that Korey did on night goggles and the 35 looked quite a bit more blurry on zoom but thought that might have been the video out.

Thoughts?
 
Originally Posted By: bhallowsBenefits of the Super vs. the 35??

Hunting the wide open out west. Don't necessarily care much about internal video.

Clarity?
Functionality?

I watched the youtube video of the 35 vs. super comparison that Korey did on night goggles and the 35 looked quite a bit more blurry on zoom but thought that might have been the video out.

Thoughts?


I'm sure there are much more knowledgeable people than me on this but I will give you my view between the two since now I have both and have been comparing them side by side. To my eyes without questions the Hogster 35-R provides a better detailed picture than the SH. Both do show some pixelization when zoomed. The H-R more so. Honestly, it's not bad at all. There is less going on in the menu with the H-R so it does make it easier changing settings. If you are hunting longer ranges the SH makes more sense based on the 2.9x native power. The H-R does have a better field of view at 2x. If you need a few more bells and whistles like the App, video record, Inclinometer, compass and additional reticles the SH is definitely the way to go. You can save some scratch and get the H-R if you don't need the fancy stuff. You will not be disappointed. I'm amazed at how the image looks. Probably not much on the market that will compare price wise based on the image you get. Perfect? No, nothing is. But both give you a lot for the money. I personally think Pulsar messed up and has some re figuring to do. AGM isn't in the same game at this time, ATN.....well I will leave that one alone. You pay for the image in the N'Vision and Trijicon at double or triple. I can't wait to see what the 640x480 Hogster will be like first of next year!
 
Originally Posted By: bhallowsBenefits of the Super vs. the 35?? Hunting the wide open out west. Don't necessarily care much about internal video. The comfortable shooting range is the big difference. I tell people the following whenever discussing the 3 units:
[*]The Hogster 25 can shoot comfortably to 150 yards. (FOV 14.9°) MAP Price: $2,355 [*]The Hogster 35 can shoot comfortably to 200-225 yards. (FOV 10.7°) MAP price: $2,675[*]The Super Hogster can shoot comfortably to 300+ (FOV 7.5°) MAP Price: $3,195[/list]
I have shot coyotes from 30 yards to 450 yards and everything in between and haven't touched the magnification on the Super Hogster. 2.9x with 5.8x PIP is about perfect for open plains coyote hunting. Even without internal recording, reticles, wifi, etc, I would own the Super Hogster for your terrain.

Originally Posted By: bhallowsClarity? Clarity means lot of different things. Animal clarity goes to the the SH35. Background clarity goes to the R35. I don't shoot at backgrounds as I shoot coyotes. The SH35 has a whiter image. Both are good, and it just depends what a person is looking for.

Originally Posted By: bhallowsFunctionality? Super Hogster has everything the 35 has plus has internal recording, wifi, 4 additional reticles, compass, inclinometer. The SH can also be turned off when connected to a battery pack where the R35 requires a disconnection from the battery pack.

Originally Posted By: bhallowsI watched the youtube video of the 35 vs. super comparison that Korey did on night goggles and the 35 looked quite a bit more blurry on zoom but thought that might have been the video out.Actually, the video out of the 35 benefitted the 35 vs the Super Hogster. The Super Hogster compression is 10x more than the DVR resulting in very small video files. This allows for more hours of recording and easier to share media file.

In my opinion, the Super Hogster's digital zoom retains much better quality than the Hogster R35 or R25. However, I have taken shots past 400 yards and still haven't needed to zoom it. However, if someone doesn't like PIP and wants to zoom instead, it will retain a better image quality even with the increased base magnification.

I also like the fact that the Super Hogster has a small cross reticle in the PIP vs trying to duplicate the reticle of the main window. When using many of the R35 reticles, it takes up so much room in the PIP window making it very busy.

I am not trying to downplay how good the R35 is. However, I would not want to go back to the R35 after using the Super Hogster for hunting wide open terrain. It has the features I need plus it has the magnification I need. That last sentence is the key. The first thing to determine is what magnification and FOV will work best for your hunting situation.
 
Thank you guys for the input. Previously I had my mind set on the SH but the more I was looking into it I was wondering if it was worth saving the few hundred dollars.

Looks like SH still is the preferred unit, but it is good to know that I can't really go wrong using either one.
 
Back
Top