Talk me into buying an IR Hunter Mark3 35mm

Can't go wrong with it. It's an amazing unit. Only cons I can find is lack of manual focus but you get used to it. Image quality is amazing. It's a top notch all around scope.
 
I'll second that. Couldn't ask for much more other than maybe more battery life, but that goes for about all of them. I would definitely get the USB battery pack. Most of the retailers include the DVR setup with them now a days. I had my dealer keep the DVR and include the battery pack instead.
 
Last edited:
I have a reap but also have a trail 50 on order just for the sake of recording. The reap is a better image but it'll be my scanner, which I use 10 times what i use my riflescope anyway.
 
Originally Posted By: cmatera I'm holding out for a REAP-IR, but the Pulsar Trail XP 50 with built in recording may sway me.

I would take the 12 micron core in the REAP-IR over the 17 micron core in the Pulsar. You can always add an MDVR to the REAP-IR.

I have owned the REAP-IR and I ended up switching back to a 35mm Mark III scope. I like the ergonomics of the scope with the corresponding menu knobs better than the joystick. I also had problems with the DLOC mount loosening up after shooting 8 or 10 rounds at running hogs and had to wrench it down VERY tight to deal with that issue.

The germanium lens in the scope gives a better image IMO than the Gasir lens in the REAP-IR even though they market the Gasir as better. (more profit margin with the cheaper GASIR lens?)

The added weight of the scope body is huge plus for me when trying to keep muzzle rise to a minimum shooting multiple times at running hogs. I could see a noticeable difference between the two.

I have a Patrol M300W I use for scanning and it has an objective focus which allows for fine tuning the image to get the most out of the unit. If the REAP-IR had the objective focus I would probably would have kept the unit and dealt with the things I didn't care for.

It all boils down to personal preference and what works best in the field for any given user.

BTW. I have nothing against Pulsar. I have owned 2 of their units and I have a Helion XP38 on order.

 
Last edited:
Great info there. I don't want a scope that loosens up, especially at night, and never was wild about the joystick arrangement. We don't have hogs here, so no fast shooting or muzzle rise to worry about. Although I like the small form factor of the REAP-IR, a little more weight is not too big a deal because nighttime coyote hunting (my reason for buying) is pretty much a stationary situation, except for a couple of relocations. I will re-visit the MKIII based on what you say. I did not want to go MKII, because it seemed like IRD threw MKII users under the bus regarding software updates, once the MKIII came out.
 
Wow! I expected a little heavier, but not 2 1/2 times heavier. A 2 1/2# scope is a heavy scope! Since I already have a thermal scanner, I would rather have a smaller unit with less magnification, wider FOV, and less detection range. The name of my game is to get them closer at night anyway, not be sniping at 250+ yds in the dark. I almost never shoot over 150 yds in daylight.
 
Originally Posted By: cmatera Wow! I expected a little heavier, but not 2 1/2 times heavier. A 2 1/2# scope is a heavy scope! Since I already have a thermal scanner, I would rather have a smaller unit with less magnification, wider FOV, and less detection range. The name of my game is to get them closer at night anyway, not be sniping at 250+ yds in the dark. I almost never shoot over 150 yds in daylight.

Not sure which scopes you are referring to ??

The specs on the Trijicon units:

REAP-IR - 590 grams / 20.8 oz / 1.3 lbs

Mark III 35mm - 989 grams / 34.9 oz / 2.1 lbs

As you can see the Mark III is 14 oz heavier than the REAP-IR and a good portion of that (5.8 oz) is the double lever Larue mount as apposed to the single lever mount on the Mark II scope.

Just for the sake of comparison a Nightforce NXS 3.5-15x50 weighs 850 grams/30oz without scope rings.

lALXGLK.jpg
 
Last edited:
That puts it in perspective. I thought the difference was greater. I' m sure the LaRue mont is good and solid. 5.8 oz well spent.
 
Originally Posted By: Mr. Poppadopalis
For use on the Wide open plains of Nebraska and Colorado


I'll talk you out of it... Get the 60mm.
 
Originally Posted By: wompa35mm works on prairie use, 60mm is ideal.

Originally Posted By: skinneyOriginally Posted By: Mr. Poppadopalis
For use on the Wide open plains of Nebraska and Colorado


I'll talk you out of it... Get the 60mm.



I agree.....seems like a perfect place for the 60mm.
 
Personally viewed the REAP-IR 35mm and the MK II 35mm...I wouldn't complain about owning either one! What a view they have. I was very impressed! The 60mm should reach way out
 
Last edited:
I rented the 60mm this winter and it ruined me.... Almost have enough saved up to call Carrolton TX..... and get one of my own coming.
 
Originally Posted By: Mr. PoppadopalisI think i will order the 60mm on Monday!

Thanks ALL!!!

I run a mkii 35mm and had the chance to run a 60mm next to it over the weekend. If you are in wide open terrain and shot distances past 150 you'll want the 60mm. Youtube makes this video look bad, but it was filmed through the 35mm. Change the setting to HD and it will look much better. If you are on Facebook there is a HD version on the Night Ops LLC page, along with some videos that were done in live feed. I also run live feed videos through the 35mm in a group called Predator Hunting: Tips, Tricks and Tactics.

After this last weekend and in comparison to the 35mm, I have a 60mm ordered today. Yes, the cost is justified and yes it is worth it. Once I get it I'll be doing video and live feed from both the 35mm as my scanner and the 60mm on the rifle.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top