My attitude has been jaded by my perception (and resulting opinion) that our community is dishonest with itself and outsiders. I think we cut our own throats and deteriorate our credibility sometimes. I apologize if I was out of line.

The Raccoon hunting you mentioned would fall under the concession I made for pigs and coyotes. I don't walk my dog like you do; I do understand the benefits of hiking (or similar activities) with night vision. I have also gone on hikes with night vision, though that activity wasn't a motivator in it's purchase. Those activities give us more experience moving with night vision, which serves us well in the militaristic context.

I suppose my point could be boiled down to: no one buys night vision to be recreationally entertained by stars, or to walk without a flashlight, or potentially have unique wildlife encounters. You'd have to almost literally be lighting Cuban cigars with twenty dollar bills, to justify such an investment for those activities.

Our purchases were made because there is a "bigger picture" that we perceive. That bigger picture justifies the expenditure of thousands of dollars for a niche item.

I am sorry, sigfreund, for the derailment.

If someone can purchase a Rolex or Omega that doesn’t tell time more accurately—or even as well—as a Timex, and for whatever reason, I’m not going to tell myself not to do something merely because cold, hard practical logic asks “Why?” For most of my life I wouldn’t have considered such an impractical, expensive acquisition for a moment. Now, however, I can, and am. It’s quite possible I’ll come to my senses before encumbering a credit card, but part of the decision making process is to learn what I can about options and characteristics. But other than to help others give me the advice I need, I’m not going to discuss what may or may not motivate me. (And I have owned three Rolex watches. One I sold, one I gave away, and one I still own. )

I appreciate all the discussion. I am, after all, seeking information, both hard facts and opinions, and both pro and con.

Sigfreund, I’m in between days of theme parks with my son and won’t type up a big post from mobile, but most of my posts in the last few pages of KSGM’s thread have been partly directed towards someone at your stage of the game: totally new to any interest in this, or maybe knows a little terminology, but otherwise overwhelmed with data and trying to parse what’s import to know and what’s not.

Like Jones said, any night vision is better than no night vision, and analog is better than digital, and lower spec dual tubes are better than a high spec single tube. I’ve met, hiked, and now shot with several dozen guys with a variety of setups. Two twenty year old green tubes have consistently been better than any high spec new (*edit for clarity - talking about a PVS14 here) loaner white phos tube I’ve looked through. Assuming you have both eyes, the same information to both will always be preferable (I’ve talked with a lot of guys who have both duals and more than a few who also have a PVS14 and this is so far the universal conclusion) and you can get into green phos tubes a lot cheaper than white. Your quote of four grand will buy you a very capable used green phos dual tube setup, plus a mount, and then you’re into a couple hundred bucks for a bump helmet and figuring out a counterweight, which can also be done cheap.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: P220 Smudge,

quote:

P220 Smudge,

Thank you, P220 Smudge, and everyone else who has contributed to my knowledge.
At this point I’m at the sit and think about things for a bit stage. I do, however, appreciate everyone’s time and knowledge about the matter.

The only thought I had, when considering the thermal, is that it made for neat footage, when you knew where the guy was, and he was moving around. However, I don't know that the contrast is stark enough that you'd readily spot a stationary target; especially at distance.