The N1000 is definitely more powerful on number 4 but the light they gave off and picture was 'similar' when I tried them.sunndog wrote:thanks for the reply mate. i asked because i'm still curious about the archer. if a firefly is comparable to an n1000 200yrds should be nothing to a gen3 addon yet declan seems to imply its quite a long way for it
another bloke said his reaches 350yrds easy with a nightmaster
The problem with Declan implying the fox was difficult to see was it wasn't 200 yrds it was at least 265m so roughly at least 290yrds. On a clean field the fox would be a doddle to spot, this fox was on a fern breast with only its head and part of its neck showing. I'm not sure if he was getting eye shine but I know from my experience with the Nv on shots like this its often extremely difficult to even 100% Id the fox with the Nv let alone shoot it. I've watched them 500yrds numerous times but on clean fields hence my preference for the WHITE lamp due to the ground I shoot over, red LEDs in the nm800 or xsearcher just don't cut it, I'll never get rid of the blitz. When I think about it I was a million percent confident in the id and the shot, I didn't even think about Declan because he couldn't possibly have been 100% on Id as he would have only seen the eye shine with the lamp, i hope he didnt think I was even remotely doubtful of the ID. Even when I (cough, cough) encouraged the fox to move we couldn't even see the fox move from the spot so it would have been incredibly hard to spot with nv. Declan spotted it with the lamp a fair way down the bank on a clear path in the fern then it disappeared again. This was when I could see the huge potential of the thermal as I could see it making its way slowly along the path through the fern and finally out of sight but there wouldn't have been the opportunity for a shot on the lamp or Nv. The fox wasnt massively spooked after the shot but I haven't even been back to sort it out as They don't give me a problem this time of year, I usually leave them until the autumn so they fill the place back up. Going back to the archer, I don't doubt they'll see/shoot out 300yrds or whatever but in the right location and with the right IR light.
How do they compare to the likes of a pvs 14 for light gathering?
I've seen them side by side without IR in the past and the pvs won hands down without IR but with it they seemed to give a similar picture. I havent looked at the exact specs of archer tubes but I guess they'd need more IR than a pvs 14 to get out further distance wise but again would this be balanced out by using a lower end scope on the archer and higher end on the pvs?
I'll also add when Declan tried the nm800 I don't think it was on its tightest setting, we did alter it but if I remember correctly it was after we spotted that fox. The archer is definitely a great add on when everything's right. This was the reason I Stopped taking my dedicated when covering lots of ground as I'm not confident in regular 300yrd shots with it as I can't mag up and see enough like with the lamp but there is nothing better than the dedicated on bait point or calling sessions where I can position myself so the shot will be no more than 250. Again on clean fields 250yrds is easy enough on a 6x mag Nv scope but when they are surrounded by cover with only their heads exposed it can be a total different matter. I've always thought a thermal scope would be the answer but on occasion I think I'd still need a lamp or even Nv for the shot, its all a compromise and choosing the right/best tool for the job at that time. I haven't even tried digital yet so perhaps that's the answer..

















