Flir Scout III 640

I owned a Flir Scout III 640. It was OK. Decent battery life, and durable. It has a good field of view. I didn't like the detection range or the quality of the image, especially for a 640 thermal. I prefer a Pulsar Helion XP38 or 50 or the Hogster-R 25mm or 35mm instead. Better image and range on both. The Hogster can also be used as a scope as well.

Lots of people really like the Flir Scouts, I just wasn't one of them.
 
I own a Scout 111 640, and owned a 320.
I pretty much agree with Kirsh, except I like mine.

Pros of the FLIR; Very simple to use, proven reliability, and compact. I sold my 320 to my buddy, it is 6 (?) years old and still works like new, never one issue. The 640 has been just as reliable, 3 years old and not 1 issue and it has hundreds of hours on it.
But it is older technology, not nearly the image quality of newer stuff.

As much of a FLIR fan that I have been I would probably look at something else now just because of the advancements in image quality that the Scout line has not kept up with.
 
I appreciate all the responses. I looked at the XP38, which is nice but I don't need the recording options and that probably is what brings the cost up some. The Flir Scout III 640 is around $2,150, maybe less, which is very doable cost wise and I would like to give thermal a go in total darkness for wildlife detection - mainly coyote, fox and whatever is raising [beeep] with the War Department's bird feeders in the backyard. Ya, the game camera and tracks show deer, but I need an excuse to purchase the thermal unit.

When I get a thermal hand held scanner, I'll have to see if I can get coyotes coming to my e-caller at night, if I do, maybe I'll have to save up and go with a thermal scope. I'm not so sure coyotes come in as easy as some videos show, at least in eastern north Dakota.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top