Thermal on a budget... looking for some experienced advice

[1187Shooter]

I'm looking for a thermal sight for an upcoming Texas hog hunt in December, and I've been googling back and forth between a few in my range.
My top end is going to be around 25-2800. Right now the units I've looked at are from lowest to highest:

Pulsar Core RXQ30L
Armasight Predator 336 2-8x25 (60Hz)
FLIR ThermoSight Pro PTS233
Pulsar Apex XQ38
Pulsar Apex XQ50

I don't really have the option to handle any of these right now, so I'm doing as much research as I can.

The RXQ30L is the cheapest, and gets great reviews, but I'm a little concerned about longer range ID... however I do have a couple of Digital NV scopes with good IR illuminators for longer distance if necessary.

From what I could see online, the Predator is great but the image quality might be a little lacking compared to some of the others. Again, this is just from what I can tell through videos and images.

The FLIR looks like a good option too but I'm worried it won't arrive in time to get it mounted and sighted in and get familiar with it before the hunt. Also read some things that make me question FLIR's CS... which is relatively important.

I'd really like to see a side-by-side video between the FLIR and the Predator... these two seem to be the closest in comparison to each other, and relatively close in price. The new FLIR core looks impressive, but is it that much better than the TAU 2? I use thermal cameras for work on a regular basis, so I am familiar with the technology, as it relates to industrial maintenance, but I know there a some significant differences.

The Apex models look great, and I like the PinP feature. Are they really that much better than the others to justify the higher price? How does the XQ38 compare to the RXQ30L?

My total budget as it stands now is going to be around $3000, and I'd like to not have to use it all on the scope, as there are a few other pieces of gear that I need to pick up as well, including possibly a new rifle for the scope to ride on. That would point to one of the first three on the list, but if the Pulsars are that much better, then I may bite the bullet and just improvise on the gear for this year. Wouldn't be the first time...

I guess I could look at the ATN Thor as well, but I have an ATN X-Sight II, and although I like it, I'm not sure I feel confident that Thor would be reliable. There are a lot of horror stories circling around ATN's HD optics.

All this to say, I figured coming here, to the guys who use this stuff daily would be the best research tool I could have. Any help you guys may be able to offer would be greatly appreciated. I've had a few people "in the know" point me towards the Pulsars, but there are a lot of unknowns for me still.

 

[iFlyLow]

I don't have any of these units, so I can't really offer any comparisons for you. Since Flir owns Armasight now, I'm wondering if the Predator will be continued being that there seems to be a lot of overlap in those units capabilities (especially once the units with focus rings come out). The 233 is basically a Predator with a better core and onboard recording.

 

[Brian Shaffer]

Personally, of your choices, I would skip the Armasight Predator, anything ATN, and the Pulsar Apex XQ38. The FLIR thermosights look interesting, but I suggest to folks to not be in the first wave of buyers. Just about all the products go through some growing pains and despite the work of engineers and limited field testing, first wave buyers often end up finding other things that need work. If you can wait until the units have been out a few months and see how they are doing, then that might be the time to buy. I would not suggest buying the lowest end Thermosight, but going up a step to the next one with a larger lens and real focus. Otherwise, the Pulsar Apex XQ50 is the best unit offered out of the bunch.

The RXQ30L does not compare well to the XQ38 except for the price. The latter has a real focus, larger lens will definitely have a better picture.

The firmware features on the Pulsars are very cool, no doubt about it. Between the myriad of reticles, being able to change reticle brightness (which is a really freaking cool feature compared to what you see with reticles being washed out on Armasights/FLIRS), flipflopping of their B/W coloring, a center dot that contrasts, I really like the Pulsars in this regard. I am also a big fan of PiP, but it does take some experience to getting used to using it.

 

[robininni]

With the excellent rebates going on through December 31st you can get a nice ATN scope for the price range. Will it work flawlessly? Some would say it may not but perhaps it will be fine as others seem to have no issues. Can't beat them on price with those rebates right now.

 

[theblakester]

I would not do ATN at all. Not familiar with the new flir. I would suggest the apex xq38, Apex xq50 or the pulsar trail xq38. I have a trail xq38. My brother in law has a trail xq50. I've compared them side by side multiple times. They're pretty similar image wise inside 100 yards. Out past 125 yards the 50 starts getting noticeably better imo. But the 38 has a wider field of view. For the price I am very impressed with it. This video shows the trail xq38 in action. The apex xq38 has the same image.

 

[Brian Shaffer]

With the excellent rebates going on through December 31st you can get a nice ATN scope for the price range. Will it work flawlessly? Some would say it may not but perhaps it will be fine as others seem to have no issues. Can't beat them on price with those rebates right now.

Great rebate on this?

 

[1187Shooter]

Thanks for the replies.
So it looks like ATN is still not a good option. I do like my X Sight, but like I said before, I don't really feel confident in their thermal HD stuff. Pricing aside, the others just seem more solid. That and I really don't need all of the extra bells and whistles that ATN packs inside their products. That's what makes the Apex line so attractive to me, simple and effective.
Armasight is iffy, and the next step up in the Thermosight probably won't be out in time.
Brian can you elaborate on why you'd pass on the XQ38?

 

[robininni]

I'll tell you what, I've looked through most offerings except Trijicon which I have coming next week. For your budget I would add $2000 and then I would go with a Puslar XP50 from OpticsPlanet using their 10% 'hurry' code for the next few days. $4500 and you're gonna be very happy.

 

[1187Shooter]

I'll tell you what, I've looked through most offerings except Trijicon which I have coming next week. For your budget I would add $2000 and then I would go with a Puslar XP50 from OpticsPlanet using their 10% 'hurry' code for the next few days. $4500 and you're gonna be very happy.

Unfortunately that's not gonna happen... gotta stay within the budget.

Now I do have a question for the Pulsar experts...
How do the model numbers work? I get the lens size, and the difference between Apex and Trail models, but XD, XP, XQ etc... what does it all mean???

 

[Brian Shaffer]

{This is all from memory and hopefully is fully accurate}

Okay, the Apex was last year's model and they are only 384 resolution scopes. For 384 resolution, they work really well. The are longer, hence bulkier than the Trail models. The Apex was Pulsar's first attempt at a thermal rifle scope. It has many of the same basic firmware controls, but the Trail has more features. Apex runs on batteries or an external power supply (I think). The Apex was a 25 micron scope, but still had a great image.

The Trail is the new offering, smaller, more compact. Rechargeable battery or can run on exterior power supply. It also does record video (though still only silently). It is waterproof or more waterproof than the Apex. Whereas the menu system on the Apex uses symbols, the Trail uses symbols and words (easier to use). The Trail comes in 384 resolution (XQ series) and 640 resolution (XP series). The Trails are a 17 micron scope. The XQ and XP series have the same everything except for the core resolution.

When the Apex was the only offering from Pulsar, I felt strongly that the Apex XQ50 was best value for the $ in thermal scopes, not the best scope, but best value. I actually got to field test the first prototype when it came to the US for Sellmark (the importer of Pulsar) and was impressed with what it could do. They made some changes and I have use the XQ50 and XQ38 LRF (has a laser rangefinder on it). Apex is still a decent value.

I have in my possession an XQ38LRF and Trail XP50 that I am testing for *******************. The only things I find troubling between the two platforms is that while they do many of the same exact things, they do them differently. The Apex has a wheel button that allows you to do many functions and scroll menus a bit more quickly. It is really nice for zoom purposes. The Trail is all push button.

As far as XD and XQ versions of the Apex, the difference had to do with the display screens, IIRC.

 

[1187Shooter]

Thank you for clearing that up! Most helpful.
How do you find the rangefinder? I saw that model online and wondered if it was worth the extra.

 

[Taco]

You’re going to buy a new scope for maybe one hunt? I’d go here and maybe other forums classifieds and buy a used scope. Or borrow one? Maybe I read your needs wrong? I wouldn’t buy a thermal scope sight unseen for a hunt or a few.

 

[Sidelight]

Brian if I could make one slight correction. I believe the "new" XQ Apex models share the newer 17 micron cores as the new Trail XQ. As opposed to the last generation XD Apex which used a 25 micron core. Making the newer Apex's a good deal if image quality (As compared to other 384res thermals) your primary focus.

 

[theblakester]

Brian if I could make one slight correction. I believe the "new" XQ Apex models share the newer 17 micron cores as the new Trail XQ. As opposed to the last generation XD Apex which used a 25 micron core. Making the newer Apex's a good deal if image quality (As compared to other 384res thermals) your primary focus.

This is correct. The new Apex line (XQ and XP) has the better 17 micron core as well as the better LED screen. The older apex models were all 25 micron cores and the "A" line had a not as good LCD screen where as the "S" or "non A" line had the better LED Screen. (Referring to last years models-- Pulsar Apex HD38 is the same as pulsar Apex HD38S. The pulsar Apex HD38A has the lesser quality LCD screen.) All of the Apex and Trail (XQ and XP) have the better LED screen and 17 micron core. I believe he only new model not to have the 17 micron core and the better screen is the cheapest entry level Core RXQ.

Another cool thing about the Trail line is that they have 3 preset zero settings. U can zero the one scope on 3 different guns.

 

[WhoCares]

Couple of thoughts. First I’ve never seen that video and it was very good! Second is I would rent whatever scopes I was looking at first thru UNV or hunt with an outfitter that supplies the thermal scopes so you can compare before purchase. There are huge differences in ergonomics and picture quality between units.

 

[Brian Shaffer]

Thank you for clearing that up! Most helpful.
How do you find the rangefinder? I saw that model online and wondered if it was worth the extra.

The LRF is a cool feature, no doubt. For 'most' hunters, it probably isn't going to be necessary because they hunt within 200 yards and if they are using centerfire rifle ammo, probably can be shooting POA out that far without worrying too much about bullet drop over distance. It is good for determining if animals are beyond that range and if you are going to be shooting subsonic, it would be exceptionally useful because bullet drop within 200 yards can be significant.

It works pretty much like other rangefinders. I find that with my cheapo golf LRF, my pricy Sig Kilo that ranges further than I plan to ever walk, or the Pulsar Apex LRF, the trick to getting reliable range estimation is to range the target multiple times to make sure you are ranging the proper thing. If you are slightly off on your aim (maybe from being just a tad shaky), you may range somewhere forward of the critter or behind the critter. So you do have to use some common sense in using the technology.

Brian if I could make one slight correction. I believe the "new" XQ Apex models share the newer 17 micron cores as the new Trail XQ. As opposed to the last generation XD Apex which used a 25 micron core. Making the newer Apex's a good deal if image quality (As compared to other 384res thermals) your primary focus.

Ah! Very good. I appreciate the help! You know that they say the something-or-other is the first to go as you get old, you know where you recall stuff from the past.

Also, thank you Blake.

This is correct. The new Apex line (XQ and XP) has the better 17 micron core as well as the better LED screen. The older apex models were all 25 micron cores and the "A" line had a not as good LCD screen where as the "S" or "non A" line had the better LED Screen. (Referring to last years models-- Pulsar Apex HD38 is the same as pulsar Apex HD38S. The pulsar Apex HD38A has the lesser quality LCD screen.) All of the Apex and Trail (XQ and XP) have the better LED screen and 17 micron core. I believe he only new model not to have the 17 micron core and the better screen is the cheapest entry level Core RXQ.

Another cool thing about the Trail line is that they have 3 preset zero settings. U can zero the one scope on 3 different guns.

Also, thank you Blake!

 

[WhoCares]

Hey Brian, I decided the other day to see how accurate the range finder is on my IRD Mark 3. It’s had some bad reviews. I took a reflective full size hog target out to multiple distances from 50 - 350 yards. I set the dimensions on the range finder for 1 yd vertical and 1 Yd horizontal. As long as I bracketed the hog using the horizontal measurement and ignoring the vertical every yardage measurement was within 5 feet of what the scope was saying it was. I was pretty impressed. I used it the other day on a 160 yd pig and it’s pretty fast to use.

 

[Brian Shaffer]

Hey Brian, I decided the other day to see how accurate the range finder is on my IRD Mark 3. It’s had some bad reviews. I took a reflective full size hog target out to multiple distances from 50 - 350 yards. I set the dimensions on the range finder for 1 yd vertical and 1 Yd horizontal. As long as I bracketed the hog using the horizontal measurement and ignoring the vertical every yardage measurement was within 5 feet of what the scope was saying it was. I was pretty impressed. I used it the other day on a 160 yd pig and it’s pretty fast to use.

Okay, you used a full size hog target. What is a full-sized hog? Is that a 75 lb sow? Is that a 150 lb sow. Is it a 300 lb boar? 400 lb boar? When a hog is way out in a field some unknown distance, how do you know if it is the correct sized full sized hog?

So you ignored one yardage estimate? Why did you do that? In the field, which would you know to ignore?

I am asking you a lot of questions here because I want you to think about the shortcomings of the tool and to not get too enamored with its applicability. It has some real, inherent flaws.

For statiometric rangefinding to work in this case, you must have an object of known size. Here, the object is assumed to be vertically parallel to you and flush. It isn't leaning toward or away from you and it isn't quartered toward or away from you. I am not sure which formula that they used, but they then calculate the angle from you to the hog (top and bottom or nose to tail) in order to determine distance. So the only known variable here is the size of the hog. If you know the size of the hog, you can estimate distance. Here is the rub. Not all hogs are the same size. A 75 lb hog standing next to a 300 lb hog will give you two different ranges using a staiometric rangefinder. Why? Because the hogs are two different sizes.

Is this critical? Maybe. If you are ranging for subsonic ammo or trying to range things at longer distances, the potential error may be such that your bullet drop could be significant.

 

[1187Shooter]

You’re going to buy a new scope for maybe one hunt? I’d go here and maybe other forums classifieds and buy a used scope. Or borrow one? Maybe I read your needs wrong? I wouldn’t buy a thermal scope sight unseen for a hunt or a few.

To clarify, I want the scope before I go to Texas in December, but will use it a lot more than for one hunt. There are lots of coyotes up here...
I'm not against the idea of buying used, though, which I hadn't really considered up until you mentioned it.

 

[WhoCares]

Brian, I agree it not laser perfect for sure. I used a hog target that is 1 yard wide and 2 feet high. I put it at multiple distances and various angles away from me. However I can normally move to a point that the hog is more or less directly in front of me. Since I don’t have a night visible range finder I was hoping this would be the next best thing.

As you know on the IRD the lowest the stadiometric range finder can be set is either 1 yard or meter vertically and horizontally Cannot fine tune it any lower than that. The vertical height of the hog i ignored because most hogs I shoot don’t stand 1 yard high plus in my testing if I completely framed the hog it showed a much further distance than taped out. I doubt weight of the hog makes any difference but I do think length of the hogs profile makes a difference. So on my last hog that was at 160 yds I would estimate its side profile length at 3 feet, maybe a little more. The range finder said 160 and I measured it out at 157 yds with my tape.

I agree with u that a piglet won’t range accurately, nor will a 500 lbs boar because of the horizontal length differences. I’m just using an average.

Anyway this was not scientific testing, just my feeble attempt at finding something that would work for me. Before I tried this method I would think a hog was 10 feet away when it was really 100 yards away or visa versa, no depth perception with thermal. I will continue to measure out the distances on my kills to see if and where the range finder starts to go south. So far it’s working well for me.