Post 2 now has an updated comparison. Better than this post 
Welcome to my first ever comparison/review thread! I'm in the process of selling off some of my nightvision optics, in order to pay for my new to me PVS14! However, before any get sold, I figured I should do a review and comparison of the devices, even though it is sort of an apples to oranges to bananas comparison. I plan on doing a few more comparisons, this first post is just to introduce the idea, and see what kind of suggestions you have and what you would like to see! Without further ado, the introductions:
At the back we have the ATN Ares 4 CGT. This scope is a Gen. 2 4x magnification rifle scope, and it comes with a detachable IR illuminator. It has automatic brightness control, and a green or red reticle. I do not have the reticle visible for this test.
At front left, we have my latest acquisition. It is a milspec PVS14, with an L3 Gen 3 tube. It is not autogated, and has manual gain control, and a built in IR illuminator. I bought this used from our very own TV-PressPass.
The front right is a FLIR Scout PS32. This is the first edition of the Scout line, and it features a 320x240 pixel microbolometer (the IR sensor) and a 320x240 viewing screen. It comes with a charge cable, and a soft carry case.
A very quick introduction to night vision devices:
Gen 2 - amplifies ambient light by about 20,000 times. On a clear, reasonably moonlit night, or in an area with some artificial light, these work very well. On starlit or overcast nights, an infrared illuminator is needed to have good results.
Gen 3 - amplifies ambient light by 30,000-80,000 times, with newer tubes being higher than that if I recall. Do not need IR illuminator unless in an area with almost no ambient light, such as a very dark basement. The tested PVS14 is likely in the middle of the pack (40-70,000x), as I believe it to be approximately equivalent specs to an Omni 3 or 4 tube.
FLIR Thermal/IR - The FLIR unit senses thermal radiation, and shows an image showing temperature differentials. If you are warmer or colder than your surroundings, which a living critter will invariably be, you will show up. These work in daylight as well, and can see through fog and smoke, though with limited success. Its screen has a 7.5 hz refresh rate, so the video is a bit choppy.
Now for the "test". Basically I opened my window, and looked out to the cemetery that my house backs onto. This will at least show you what it looks like to look through each device, and will highlight a few strengths and weaknesses between the 3 optics. The big tree in the middle of the frame is 85 yards away.
*As a disclaimer, I used my phone for these pictures. Lesson learned, and the next test will use a proper camera, which hopefully will give better quality pictures.*
First is the ATN Ares:
While the picture is not a perfectly clear representation of what this optic shows in real life, the first thing I noticed when I first use this scope, was that it may well be difficult to positively ID something if it was further than perhaps 150 yards away. Even at 85, while the tombstones are fairly clear, and a coyote would be easily recognizeable, it is easy to see that the small details are starting to diminish. This is amplified as the ambient light decreases. The one advantage about having a 4x magnification in a situation like this, however, is that you will not get as many lights blooming in your view.
Next up is the PVS14:
The pictures do show that there is decent clarity, however, there are so many lights in this picture, that you are hardly able to see what might be going on in the cemetery. In real life, it was easier to see what was going on, and with the manual gain, it is something that can be adjusted for, but at the expense of not seeing as well into the shadows. I very deliberately chose this picture to show what I can see as the only downside to a larger field of view: way more lights to bloom. It also may be hard to determine what you are looking at without any magnification, as it is the same as looking at something 85 yards away with your bare eyes.
Now the FLIR:
This was the most disappointing of the bunch, and it has been something I've seen in the last hunting season as I tried scouting with it: looking from afar at an area with even moderate density of trees, it shows up as a giant blob of heat. It is very hard to see any differentiation between trees, open space, and tombstone. I have found that if you are in a wooded area, it will work amazingly well, as well as if you are looking around the block at houses. On the open prairie, and in more open spaces, it seems to struggle.
As for my personal thoughts on each of these: The PVS 14 and the FLIR feel rock solid. They are very well constructed, and I would expect them to be able to take a beating before failing. The ATN... not so much. Within 3 days of owning it, my IR illuminator literally fell apart. Set screws fell out, the illuminator bulb started hanging out in front, and battery caps came pre stripped, so as not to hold the battery in properly. A month into owning it, the objective lens housing became loose, so it will now turn approximately 15 degrees each way. It hasn't affected performance, but it does not leave one confident in its durability. They do have a good warranty, and Wolverine is obviously a great company, and I know will make sure it gets fixed or replaced. However I would like to finish whatever testing I can before doing that.
After going out into a field at night with just the ATN Ares, I am now convinced that having a nightvision scope without a means of scanning with a zero magnification device is not a good situation. Imagine trying to find a coyote or hog when all you have to see through is a 4x scope. It is much, much nicer to have some method of spotting and scanning, whether FLIR or PVS, with my preference being the PVS14. You could accomplish almost anything you want to do with just a PVS, or just a magnified nightvision scope, however I would rather be with just a PVS than just a scope. For whatever that is worth.
Thanks for reading this post, I hope it was at least somewhat informative. I would really, really like some input on what you folks would like to see in way of comparisons between these three, so please give suggestions in the thread. I am hoping in the next week or so to take my dog out for a walk, and try getting him in the middle of a very dark field, and see what he looks like in each from 100 yards.
Welcome to my first ever comparison/review thread! I'm in the process of selling off some of my nightvision optics, in order to pay for my new to me PVS14! However, before any get sold, I figured I should do a review and comparison of the devices, even though it is sort of an apples to oranges to bananas comparison. I plan on doing a few more comparisons, this first post is just to introduce the idea, and see what kind of suggestions you have and what you would like to see! Without further ado, the introductions:
At the back we have the ATN Ares 4 CGT. This scope is a Gen. 2 4x magnification rifle scope, and it comes with a detachable IR illuminator. It has automatic brightness control, and a green or red reticle. I do not have the reticle visible for this test.
At front left, we have my latest acquisition. It is a milspec PVS14, with an L3 Gen 3 tube. It is not autogated, and has manual gain control, and a built in IR illuminator. I bought this used from our very own TV-PressPass.
The front right is a FLIR Scout PS32. This is the first edition of the Scout line, and it features a 320x240 pixel microbolometer (the IR sensor) and a 320x240 viewing screen. It comes with a charge cable, and a soft carry case.
A very quick introduction to night vision devices:
Gen 2 - amplifies ambient light by about 20,000 times. On a clear, reasonably moonlit night, or in an area with some artificial light, these work very well. On starlit or overcast nights, an infrared illuminator is needed to have good results.
Gen 3 - amplifies ambient light by 30,000-80,000 times, with newer tubes being higher than that if I recall. Do not need IR illuminator unless in an area with almost no ambient light, such as a very dark basement. The tested PVS14 is likely in the middle of the pack (40-70,000x), as I believe it to be approximately equivalent specs to an Omni 3 or 4 tube.
FLIR Thermal/IR - The FLIR unit senses thermal radiation, and shows an image showing temperature differentials. If you are warmer or colder than your surroundings, which a living critter will invariably be, you will show up. These work in daylight as well, and can see through fog and smoke, though with limited success. Its screen has a 7.5 hz refresh rate, so the video is a bit choppy.
Now for the "test". Basically I opened my window, and looked out to the cemetery that my house backs onto. This will at least show you what it looks like to look through each device, and will highlight a few strengths and weaknesses between the 3 optics. The big tree in the middle of the frame is 85 yards away.
*As a disclaimer, I used my phone for these pictures. Lesson learned, and the next test will use a proper camera, which hopefully will give better quality pictures.*
First is the ATN Ares:
While the picture is not a perfectly clear representation of what this optic shows in real life, the first thing I noticed when I first use this scope, was that it may well be difficult to positively ID something if it was further than perhaps 150 yards away. Even at 85, while the tombstones are fairly clear, and a coyote would be easily recognizeable, it is easy to see that the small details are starting to diminish. This is amplified as the ambient light decreases. The one advantage about having a 4x magnification in a situation like this, however, is that you will not get as many lights blooming in your view.
Next up is the PVS14:
The pictures do show that there is decent clarity, however, there are so many lights in this picture, that you are hardly able to see what might be going on in the cemetery. In real life, it was easier to see what was going on, and with the manual gain, it is something that can be adjusted for, but at the expense of not seeing as well into the shadows. I very deliberately chose this picture to show what I can see as the only downside to a larger field of view: way more lights to bloom. It also may be hard to determine what you are looking at without any magnification, as it is the same as looking at something 85 yards away with your bare eyes.
Now the FLIR:
This was the most disappointing of the bunch, and it has been something I've seen in the last hunting season as I tried scouting with it: looking from afar at an area with even moderate density of trees, it shows up as a giant blob of heat. It is very hard to see any differentiation between trees, open space, and tombstone. I have found that if you are in a wooded area, it will work amazingly well, as well as if you are looking around the block at houses. On the open prairie, and in more open spaces, it seems to struggle.
As for my personal thoughts on each of these: The PVS 14 and the FLIR feel rock solid. They are very well constructed, and I would expect them to be able to take a beating before failing. The ATN... not so much. Within 3 days of owning it, my IR illuminator literally fell apart. Set screws fell out, the illuminator bulb started hanging out in front, and battery caps came pre stripped, so as not to hold the battery in properly. A month into owning it, the objective lens housing became loose, so it will now turn approximately 15 degrees each way. It hasn't affected performance, but it does not leave one confident in its durability. They do have a good warranty, and Wolverine is obviously a great company, and I know will make sure it gets fixed or replaced. However I would like to finish whatever testing I can before doing that.
After going out into a field at night with just the ATN Ares, I am now convinced that having a nightvision scope without a means of scanning with a zero magnification device is not a good situation. Imagine trying to find a coyote or hog when all you have to see through is a 4x scope. It is much, much nicer to have some method of spotting and scanning, whether FLIR or PVS, with my preference being the PVS14. You could accomplish almost anything you want to do with just a PVS, or just a magnified nightvision scope, however I would rather be with just a PVS than just a scope. For whatever that is worth.
Thanks for reading this post, I hope it was at least somewhat informative. I would really, really like some input on what you folks would like to see in way of comparisons between these three, so please give suggestions in the thread. I am hoping in the next week or so to take my dog out for a walk, and try getting him in the middle of a very dark field, and see what he looks like in each from 100 yards.
Last edited:
