# Bering Optics Thermal



## wolverines (Jan 29, 2007)

I've finally had some time using my Bering Optics Hogster-R 35mm thermal scope/scanner and wanted to pass on what I've learned.

I first entered the world of thermal last year which I made a couple posts on. The 2 scopes I had (Thor LT/Thor 4 640) were not acceptable in my opinion and were quickly returned. I quickly learned that base mag is very important in thermal optics in that you won't get anywhere near the picture quality/clarity much beyond the base mag of your optic (at least not the one's in my price range) so I finished the year with just using NV and scanning with the rifle mounted scope. 

After a lot of research, I finally was able to get a Bering Optics Hogster-R 35mm scope/scanner. The reason I went with the 35 is because it is suitable as a scanner (simply holding down 3 buttons at the same time for 3-4 seconds removes the reticle) and a weapon scope that can store 4 profiles for different rifles/ammo. The 35 has enough field of view to make it work as a scanner, but a base mag of just over 2x so up to 150-200 yard shots are realistic as a weapon scope. 

I've taken it out on several hunts now and am very happy with this as a scanner (I haven't tried it as a weapon scope yet). I had a pair of coyotes come out in the field I was calling in last Thursday from quit a distance (close to 400 yards) that I don't think I'd of seen with without a thermal scanner. What's really nice too is being able to detect something not moving and/or in thicker cover. They show up plain as day with this thermal. The size of this thermal was surprisingly small and light weight. I was able to mount it to a scan handle with some spare parts I had laying around the shop and is working out great so far (it comes with a QD mount that will mount to any pic rail).

A new thing I've learned in my quest for a thermal optic is that weather conditions, especially humidity effect your image which I was unaware of. On a good night the image on my 35 is nothing short of impressive from what I've had to compare it too. In bad conditions, I'd still say the image was as good as it was with the Thor 4 640 core scope I had, and still better than the Thor LT. 

I'm very impressed with the picture quality and options that are included with this based on it's price range. I would recommend looking in to Bering optics if you are in the market for a good thermal but aren't looking to spend $4k or more. Currently they offer a Hogster-R 25mm or 35mm, Super Hogster, and a designated scanner called the Phenom, each under $4k. 

I will post a picture next showing it's size and how I have it mounted for scanning. I'm sure there's a lot that I've left out, but hopefully this is some help for those looking to get into thermal.


----------



## wolverines (Jan 29, 2007)

This is the scan handle I came up with


----------



## TriggerDiscipline (Sep 25, 2017)

Looks like a solid unit, thanks for your review. What were your critiques of the Thor 4? I have one and like it for the most part, although I'm annoyed at having to refocus quite a bit. I figure eventually I'll want to get a new one as the tech keeps getting better/cheaper.


----------



## wolverines (Jan 29, 2007)

TriggerDiscipline said:


> Looks like a solid unit, thanks for your review. What were your critiques of the Thor 4? I have one and like it for the most part, although I'm annoyed at having to refocus quite a bit. I figure eventually I'll want to get a new one as the tech keeps getting better/cheaper.


The Thor 4 I had was a 640 core, but 1-10x. 

My thinking then was I could scan at 1x and dial it up to shoot. Unfortunately anything above the base mag was pretty bad in my opinion. It wasn't going to do what I wanted and unacceptable at that price range IMO. At the time I was very unknowledgeable about thermal (still pretty green) and didn't realize what I was looking for doesn't really exist, at least not in my price range. Basically, more base mag meant more money and less field of view, low base mag and affordable meant very limited distance to ID what I was looking at.

My biggest fear was not knowing what I was shooting at (unacceptable IMO) so I continued to search for a scanner and opted to stick with NV for a weapon scope because it's a very good image and I can ID what I'm looking at much further distances than I could with the thermals I tried. I continued to research the Hogsters and asked a bunch of questions to one of the pro-staffers for Nightgoggles (where I bought my Hogster). His knowledge was incredibly helpful and he suggested the 35mm for what I was telling him I wanted. I honestly think that the Hogster (384 core) image at it's base mag (2x) is as good as the Thor 4 (640 core) at it's 1x base mag. Dial the Thor 4 up to 2 power and I think the Hogster is better. I didn't run the Thor in high humidity, but the guy I talked to says Berings are the best thermals he's seen/tested in high humidity.

When you get ready to look at a new one, check out the Super Hogster. I think you'll be impressed with that one. 

I'd also like to point out that I'm not knocking ATN. My NV is ATN and I like it a lot. Tons of features at a decent price and their battery life is second to non.


----------



## wolverines (Jan 29, 2007)

I mis-spoke in my original post. The base mag of the Hogster 35 is 2 power. 

I also keep forgetting to mention the PIP feature. I leave mine at the base mag, so your PIP box at the top will show the image at 4x. I think it's plenty to be able to shoot 150-200 yards.


----------

