How we tested

We took a close look at the full Nocpix Bolt series, starting with the 256 pixel P25R and the 384 pixel L35R, before stepping up to the Bolt H50R to see exactly what those extra dollars get you. We put the scopes side by side in real-world conditions from 15 metres out to 300 metres to answer a few important questions. Is a 384 pixel sensor really the minimum you need for good results, or can a 256 still get the job done? And is it worth spending the extra money to step up to a 640 sensor?

Then we put the Bolt H50R up against its big brother, the ACE 2 H50R, comparing not just image quality but features, design and form factor, to help you decide whether the Bolt is all you really need or whether spending the extra money on the ACE is actually worth it.

On the recordings: the comparisons were done at different times and under slightly different environmental conditions. They are relatively close to each other (the Bolt and ACE 2 footage was not shot on the exact same night), so this should still give you a very accurate comparison.

Image quality: Bolt P25R vs Bolt L35R

Base magnification and field of view

Starting at base magnification at 100 metres, you will notice the field of view on both units is almost identical, with the L35R being slightly wider. So when it comes to field of view, there is not a huge advantage either way. The P25R struggles, particularly for identification, though you can still make out the general shape out to 200 to 300 metres. The L35R holds shape quite a bit better out to those longer distances, but it is still not ideal for decent identification.

At 15 m and 30 m

At 15 metres, both scopes easily detect heat and show good clarity with around the same field of view. However, the L35R does show more refined detail with its larger sensor.

At 30 metres, the difference becomes more noticeable. The L35R clearly starts to pull ahead in clarity, while the P25R still looks good but begins to soften and lose fine detail. From around 30 metres onwards, the field of view on both units becomes very practical, and at this distance either scope would comfortably handle a rabbit with a headshot, no problem at all.

At 50 m

Fifty metres is where the 384 sensor in the L35R really starts to justify itself. Identification is cleaner and more confident, and you can clearly see the slightly wider field of view on the L35R, which gives a small advantage when tracking moving targets. As we zoom in, the improvements in clarity become more apparent and the image processing starts to do its job. At this distance, around 9× zoom still provides very usable target identification, with headshots possible for the right shooter under the right conditions.

At 100 m

At 100 metres, the gap widens. The L35R maintains usable detail for identification. Body shots with both units would be very easy, while the P25R is now more of a detection tool, with just enough detail to have confidence and take potential headshots. The L35R is the clear winner for headshots at this distance, but both units perform surprisingly well.

Keep in mind that when conditions warm up and humidity increases in the summer months, the P25R will take a larger hit to clarity, particularly at the 100 metre mark and beyond.

At 200 m

At 200 metres, the L35R is still comfortable for decent identification and potential headshots for the right shooter under the right conditions. However, from 100 to 150 metres onwards, I think headshots are mostly a bad idea. The P25R is quickly becoming a blob at this distance unless the animal is at the right angle, and in my opinion headshots are out of the question. Centre of mass shots would still be possible for foxes, rabbits or pigs, but not recommended. Ideally you want to positively identify the animal first, preferably using a higher quality thermal monocular, so you have higher confidence in what you are shooting at.

At 300 m

At 300 metres, the difference becomes very clear. Both units are being pushed hard at this distance, but the P25R really struggles to hold shape, making it difficult to confidently identify which part of the animal you are aiming at. In my opinion, headshots are not appropriate with either device at this range (not that many hunters would attempt them at this distance regardless). With the L35R, a well-placed body shot could still be considered acceptable under the right conditions, but with the P25R even body shots become highly questionable and generally not advised.

Image quality: Bolt L35R vs Bolt H50R

I know we are repeating ourselves a little here, but I think it is good to be able to see the differences as you go up to the higher-end models, so you can see whether you can justify paying the extra going from the L35R to the H50R. Straight away you can see that the H50R is quite a lot better. It holds a lot more detail and has significantly better shape recognition, and the field of view is slightly better as well.

At 50 m and 100 m

At 50 metres, things look pretty good on both devices, to be honest, but you can definitely see the clarity difference in the H50R.

Moving out to 100 metres is usually when you really start seeing the differences, and it is very clear. The H50R is still winning by quite a large margin. With the L35R you could take the shot, and headshots would be okay, but overall it would be a little harder. Both devices handle 100 metres pretty well.

At 200 m

Moving out to 200 metres, the L35R holds up pretty well, to be perfectly honest. You could still get pretty decent use out of it. But the H50R is certainly holding the shape of the dog a lot better at that distance. It is a very capable unit at 200 metres, and the L35R is struggling.

The real surprise for me is just how well the H50R holds up. The Bolt was really meant to be a more budget-friendly, entry-level 640 unit, but it performs extremely well for the money.

At 300 m

The 300 metre mark is the real test, and where the big boys play. The L35R is still holding up just enough that you could take some centre of mass shots, some chest shots, but the H50R is still superior in how it holds the shape of the animal.

Is it worth spending the extra money on the H50R? That is going to be up to you.

Image quality: Bolt H50R vs ACE 2 H50R

As many people would already know, we have done a very in-depth review of the ACE 2 series against the ACE 1, covering the H50R and the S60R. In that review we highlighted how new the 12 millikelvin sensors are and how they still need some fine-tuning, and we have already seen improvements over the last couple of firmware updates. I suspect that every time they release a new sensor, it takes some time for them to get their algorithms right and their processing dialled in, which is what we are seeing now.

Regardless of that, as we get out to further distances, the ACE 2 is still on top for image quality, along with many of the other features and functions we cover in the ACE 2 review. If you have not seen it, it is well worth a look.

At 50 m and 100 m

At 50 metres you cannot really tell too much of a difference. The ACE 2 is showing more heat, but both devices are still holding very good detail out to the 100 metre mark.

A note on zoom levels

The ACE 2’s digital zoom maxes out at about 10× because it has ocular zoom and works a little differently, which we show in the ACE 2 review.

At 200 m

At the 200 metre mark we start to see how the ACE 2 holds the shape and the brightness of the dog a little better, and you can see the detail quite well. But to be honest, the Bolt is surprisingly good and still holds the shape very well at 200 metres.

White hot vs black hot

One thing we did notice with the current algorithm on the 12 millikelvin ACE 2s is that black hot actually seemed to hold the shape better, and I found it quite good. Once you get out to the 200 and 300 metre marks, the difference between white hot and black hot was apparent.

At 300 m

At 300 metres is where you really see the ACE 2 take the lead. The Bolt is really struggling to hold the shape of the dog, and even the human is quite dull and faded out, not very bright. Parts of the dog’s body on the Bolt are starting to disappear. I think you will really start struggling with the Bolt around the 250 to 300 metre mark on certain species, so if you are a long-distance shooter, you might be better off stepping up to the ACE. Once again, black hot on the ACE 2 is quite good. I do like it, and I am sure we will continue to see improvements in the ACE 2.

Hopefully that helps you decide whether the Bolt H50R is good enough for what you want to do, or whether you should spend the extra money and go with the ACE 2, or even the ACE 1 while it is still available.

For the two 640s on their own, with the handling and battery compared directly, see our Bolt H50R vs ACE 2 H50R head-to-head.

Build and handling: Bolt vs ACE 2

Shape, tube and weight

There are three Bolts: the P25R, the L35R and the H50R. All three are a traditional tube-style scope on a 30 mm tube, so they drop into any rings or mount you have already got that are 30 mm and also high enough to clear the objective, and the tube is about the same length as the ACE.

The H50R is 948 grams on our scales with the battery in. The P25R is 877 grams and the L35R is 869. So the H50R is actually a touch lighter than the ACE 2 H50R, which came in at 990 grams. The eye cup is a screw-on, the same as the ACE, and I like that.

Focus and zoom

The differences you really notice start up at the front. The focus adjustment on the Bolt is built into the objective lens, and it is a bit of an effort to turn. On the ACE 2 the focus is controlled from the turret, so it is much quicker to reach and, in my opinion, a lot more precise.

There is also no ocular zoom on the Bolt at all. It is digital zoom only. For me, the hybrid zoom system was one of the standout features of the ACE 2, so that is probably the feature you will miss most when stepping down to the Bolt.

Display and rangefinder

The display on the Bolt is also smaller, and when you are looking through it, it just does not have quite the same premium feel as the ACE 2. The rangefinder sits up on top, which works fine, but again the overall design is a little more basic.

Battery cap and startup

The removable battery is another difference. On the Bolt you have a screw cap, where the ACE 2 uses a quick-release system. It is not a massive issue, but if you are changing batteries in the dark, the ACE 2 is definitely quicker and easier to deal with.

Startup is also a little slower on the Bolt. The H50R takes around 16 to 17 seconds to boot up, while the two smaller models are closer to 13 seconds. By comparison, the ACE 2 takes roughly 10 seconds, so it is noticeably quicker when you want to get the scope up and running in a hurry.

Menus, zeroing, ballistics and the app

The menu system is basically the same across the ACE 2 range and the Bolts. The layout is the same, the zeroing system is the same, the rangefinder settings are the same, and you still get most of the same bells and whistles: recoil-activated recording, picture-in-picture, a microphone, and the same app with the same profiles and custom reticle builder.

I will not go into every single setting here, because we have already covered most of it in our ACE 2 review and we have a full menu walkthrough coming. But a few things are definitely worth pointing out.

Zeroing and profiles

Zeroing is handled from one screen, and instead of a heap of preset profiles sitting there whether you use them or not, you simply create profiles as you need them. Personally, I think that is a much better way of doing it. You open an existing profile or create a new one, and all of your adjustments are handled inside that profile. There is no jumping backwards and forwards between different menus, and once you have used it a couple of times it all makes sense.

Reticles

You also get full control over the shooting reticle: shape, colour and brightness. If none of the built-in reticles suit you, you can build your own through the app. You can add your own aiming points, adjust the spacing between them, and make it as simple or as complicated as you like.

Rangefinder settings

The rangefinder settings are another area where I think Nocpix has actually paid attention to how people use these scopes in the field. You can control how long the LRF reticle and the ranging information stay on the screen after taking a measurement. That sounds like a small thing, but if you have ever had range data sitting right over the top of your shooting reticle at exactly the wrong moment, you will know how useful it is. Being able to clear that clutter quickly while still having full use of the rangefinder is a cracking feature. The LRF reticle itself is adjustable as well, for shape, colour and brightness.

Ballistics

Ballistic information can be entered directly into the scope or through the app, which is obviously much easier when you are working from a phone screen. The built-in bullet library gives you a good head start, with a stack of different calibres and ammunition brands already available. If you are running your own reloads, you can also create and name a custom load.

You can even name the profiles themselves inside the app. That sounds simple, but once you have a few rifles or different loads set up, it becomes very useful. You are not sitting there in the dark trying to remember whether profile two is your .223, your .308 or a completely different load. For anyone wanting to stretch the distance out, it is a very capable ballistic system, and it is right up there with some of the better solutions currently built into thermal scopes.

The app

The app handles the rest of the usual features as well. You get a live viewfinder so you can see exactly what the thermal is seeing, an album where you can download your photos and videos straight onto your phone, and firmware updates. If you have trouble connecting, our thermal app and WiFi connection guide walks through the fix.

That is probably one of the things that stands out most to me about the Bolt. You are getting almost the same level of control over the major features that you get on the more expensive ACE 2 range, but in a scope that costs considerably less, and that is not usually how it works when you step down into a lower price bracket.

Battery system and runtime

Power is actually one area where the Bolt has a clear advantage. Both series use an internal battery alongside a removable 18650, but they manage those batteries differently. The Bolt drains the removable battery first and only switches over to the internal battery once the removable one is depleted. The ACE 2, on the other hand, draws from both batteries together.

Personally, I prefer the way the Bolt handles it, because you can swap out the removable battery before you ever need to eat into that internal backup. There have been suggestions that Nocpix may draw from both batteries on the ACE 2 to help preserve the long-term health of the internal battery, because leaving a lithium battery sitting unused for long periods can also affect its lifespan. So there may be some logic behind the way they have designed it.

When it comes to outright runtime, though, the Bolt is well ahead in our testing. The Bolt H50R gave us roughly 9 to 10 hours, compared with around 6.5 to 7 hours from the ACE 2 H50R. The Bolt L35R came in at around 11 to 12 hours, and the Bolt P25R managed roughly 12 to 13 hours. At least, that is what we have seen in our own rundown testing.

Spec snapshot

Which one is right for you?

Really, it comes down to your needs and your budget. Here is how each Bolt came out in our testing.

Bolt P25R

Up close the P25R does the job. At 30 metres it would comfortably handle a rabbit with a headshot, and at 100 metres body shots are very easy. Past 100 metres it becomes more of a detection tool, with just enough detail to have confidence, and by 200 metres headshots are, in my opinion, out of the question. Keep in mind it takes a larger hit to clarity when conditions warm up and humidity increases in the summer months.

Bolt L35R

Fifty metres is where the 384 sensor really starts to justify itself. At 100 metres the L35R is the clear winner over the P25R for headshots, it is still comfortable for decent identification at 200 metres for the right shooter under the right conditions, and at 300 metres a well-placed body shot could still be considered acceptable.

Bolt H50R

The H50R holds a lot more detail and has significantly better shape recognition again. It is very capable at 200 metres and still superior at 300 metres in how it holds the shape of the animal, and the real surprise for me is just how well it holds up for a budget-friendly, entry-level 640. Out of the three Bolts, the H50R would be my pick. Is it worth spending the extra money over the L35R? That is going to be up to you.

Bolt or ACE 2

The biggest difference between the two ranges, and probably the one that matters most when deciding whether the ACE 2 is worth the extra money, is resolution, sensor sensitivity and the lens. The Bolt H50R is rated at 18 millikelvin, while the L35R and P25R are rated at 20 millikelvin. The ACE 2 range is rated at 12 millikelvin across the board. The Bolt also uses an F1.0 lens, while the ACE 2 H50R steps up to an F0.9 lens. When you put all of that together, particularly as the distance increases, the ACE 2 is still the clear winner for overall image quality and shape recognition.

If you are mainly shooting at closer to medium distances and you want a thermal scope that gets the job done without carrying the ACE 2 price tag, the Bolt absolutely earns its place. But if you want the best shape recognition you can get at longer distances, along with the better controls, faster focus adjustment, quick-release battery, more premium display and that hybrid ocular zoom, then the ACE 2 is where the extra money starts to make sense.

If you are still weighing up sensor and lens size, our guide on how to choose a thermal scope walks through it.