Trijicon MK3 35mm vs?

sigfla

LSB Member
Assuming you have your heart set on the Trijicon MK3 35mm is there anything else out there that should be looked at? I have gone back and forth between the Reap-IR, MK3 35mm, and MK3 60mm. Family obligations are now allowing me to buy either as an addition to my PVS14. The helmet mount option on the Reap sounds nice but I doubt I would ever use it (plus I hear its heavy). I am really leaning towards the 35mm as I love the "look" and all indications per reviews says its top of its class right now. Is there a Pulsar option I should be looking at that blows it away?
 

wigwamitus

LSB Active Member
... I love the "look" ...

Now that's a unique rationale statement ! Though others might think it ... you are the first (I've seen) bold/honest enough to say it !!

==
Trijicon has three focal length options

focal length // magnification /// field of view
19mm // 1x or 1.5x // 22 degrees
35mm // 2.5x // 12 degrees
60mm // 4.5x // 7 degrees

So, classical tradeoffs between magnification and field of view.

If most of your targets are inside 150yds ... and most of those inside 100yds ... then 19mm with 22 degree FOV is king ...

If you are scanning way out there 300yds, 500yds and over and trying to go for long distance PID ... are those yotes or deer or pigs ? Then the 60mm is king due to the extra magnification.

The 35mm is the "do both" flavor ...

I started with the 35mm ... most of my critter control is within 100yds of the coop. But I could also PID yotes out 100s of yards depending on the conditions ... eventually I upgraded the 35mm to a 60mm for long distance spotting, but then backfilled the short distance need with a Patrol M300W 19mm ... but again, the 35mm could do both jobs well ... just not quite as well as the more dedicated long / distance capabilities of the 2 units ... though at considerably less cost.

And that's where the pulsar's shine. They can hit 80% to 90% of the image clarity in most conditions of the Trijicons ... but at half or less the cost. So the Pulsars get the job done at much reduced cost ... for that extra final push to optical clarity ... the cost goes up considerable ... and that's the Trijicon space.

So the pulsars "blow away" the Trijicons on cost ... while the Trijicons are marginally better on image ... pick your poison.

I still have both trijicons and pulsars ... and still use both ... though I admit to being an OASYS core bigot :)

(trijicons have OASYS cores)
 

Taco

LSB Active Member
LSB TURKEY BUZZARD PRESERVATION SOCIETY
SUS VENATOR CLUB
I have a Reap-ir and love it but I don’t think it’s $3k better than my Zeus 42mm 640.
 

hdfireman

Blackstone Arms
SUS VENATOR CLUB
Vendor
LoneStarBoars Supporter
So the pulsars "blow away" the Trijicons on cost ... while the Trijicons are marginally better on image ... pick your poison.

You say marginally but you also have to account for the Pulsar's having a lower native magnification. Would you rather have 640 res at 2.5X or a 640 unit on 2x zoom giving you 3.2x at 320 res.
 

wigwamitus

LSB Active Member
... You say marginally but you also have to account for the Pulsar's having a lower native magnification. Would you rather have 640 res at 2.5X or a 640 unit on 2x zoom giving you 3.2x at 320 res. ...

"Marginally" is a word ... and in reality the relationship is not "linear" ... like the colder the temps get ... I've seen the Pulsar displays start fogging up ... especially the Apex side by side to the Trails ... that does not happen for the Trijicons ... I've used the Trijicons down to -20F with no issues.

But in "typical" conditions I'm in ... the Pulsar "new display" units, seem to be pretty dang close to the Trijicons, especially at under 300yds.

==

As to what would I rather have ... well I've had 4 x Pulsars and 5 x Trijicons (and had 5 Armasights and have 2 BAE and 1 NiVisSys) ... and I'd rather have the OASYS cores ... I sold one of my Apex 50mm to my #1 shooting buddy and it is still on his go to hunting carbine, so it is still "in the family" and I see it often ... and my Apex 38mm is on semi-permanent loan to a near neighbor and we get together and shoot more often now ... and I feel good knowing at least one neighbor know how to use a thermal !

I had TRAIL on my short list before they came out ... but I was disappointed by the 1.6 magnification on the 640 ... and that was a show stopper for me ... I was hoping for a Trail version of the 75mm Apex ... with 3x optical magnification on the 640, but we still don't have that one yet. So, now I personally use the Mk3 60mm for long distance spotting (and under 300yds shooting) and the Patrol M300W for intermediate spotting and inside 150yd coop patrol.

If I had to buy a Trail today, I actually think I would get the 50mm 384 unit with the native 3.1x on the front ... saving some $ and thinking the image is probably a wee bit better than the 1.6 640 on 2x digital.
 

Brian Shaffer

Hog Hunter
SUS VENATOR CLUB
LoneStarBoars Supporter
You say marginally but you also have to account for the Pulsar's having a lower native magnification. Would you rather have 640 res at 2.5X or a 640 unit on 2x zoom giving you 3.2x at 320 res.

The lower native magnification is a really big deal on the XP50, IMO, at only 1.6x for 640 resolution. The difference between 1.6x and 2.5x is 56% more magnification.
 

Wildfowler

Mis'sippi
SUS VENATOR CLUB
Has anyone else ever compares the image scene with a IRD mark2 35mm and a pulsar XP50?

I have both and feel like I can “identify” deer from hog at a greater distance with my pulsar than with my mark2 35mm.

I like being able to fine tune the main focus to help me “know for sure”.

But this brings a question to mind. Does a thermal sensor ever degrade over time? I just got my IRD back from service and they did do a “purge” as part of the repair. But my IRD is now three years old and was my only thermal for over a year so it has a lot of miles under the hood compared to my pulsar which I just got this spring.

I’m curious if anyone knows the answer to this?

Thanks.
 

Mark

LSB Member
Dang it Brian and Wig! Would you stop bringing up such good points. I had my heart set on the trail 50 and now you guys made the low 1.6 native magnification an issue in my mind.

Im now considering the 384 xq model because you know 1.6x and 2.5x is 56% more magnification.
 

wigwamitus

LSB Active Member
... Does a thermal sensor ever degrade over time? ...

My IRD is almost 3 years old ... but I had it upgraded from Mk2 35mm to Mk3 35mm in Jan 2017 and then Mk3 35mm to Mk3 60mm in Jan 2018. Based on all the "scraps" on the housing disappearing in the last upgrade, I think they essentially gave me a new unit.

Circuit boards are affected by age, but usually more dramatic than a slow "degradation" ... and that goes for the display also.

==
... Has anyone else ever compares the image scene with a IRD mark2 35mm and a pulsar XP50? ..

I ran the mk3 60mm side by side with Trail 50mm 640 in Feb in Wichita Falls .. conditions were 15-25 mph winds and temps below 20F ... I was continually asked to "put the 60 on it" when neither an IR Patrol or the Trail could PID deer versus pigs versus yotes at 300yds to 600yds distance. The wind was having an impact on degrading thermal image. Team also had a Helion, though I can't recall exactly which model and an Apex 50mm. But over the 2 nights of this outing, the Mk3 60mm wound up being the primary PID device though all the devices participated in detection.

As far as long distance spotting, I think the mk3 60mm is the second best we can buy (though some newer units might be challengers) with the Patrol250XR (with the magnification ring) being #1. The mk3 60mm does have digital focus ... and it helps a bit on occasion, but for me, watching the critters move is major input on PID at distance. So not just a static image of the shape. But dynamic image of shape + movement.
 

Wildfowler

Mis'sippi
SUS VENATOR CLUB
Good. They replaced my circuit board too as part of my recent repair.

My local dealer has a 60mm he’s been having trouble with and I have no frame of reference with it compared to the pulsar. Just haven’t been able to compare them side by side yet.

I know the few times I’ve used his 60 in the past it’s been very impressive. Probably the best system I’ve looked through.

Do you have any thoughts on the comparison between the 35mm and the XP50? My dealer, his potential customers, and I give all the slight edge to the pulsar here locally.

I didn’t really believe it until I tried the two myself side by side. I can just make out an erect deer head farther away with the pulsar than I can with the IRD as an example.

Thanks for the info.
 

wigwamitus

LSB Active Member
... any thoughts on the comparison between the 35mm and the XP50 ...

I take this back to the 35mm versus the 60mm ...
They are the same scope except for the magnification.

So, you can press 2x on the 35mm and you sort of have a 320 version of the 60mm ... So, same scope, less resolution.

==
... My dealer, his potential customers, and I give all the slight edge to the pulsar ...

I suppose there is some subjectivity to "best image" ... because what does "best" mean? (nothing)

I recall when the Apex first came out there was a lot of debate comparing the Apex images to the Armasight (FLIR cores).

To some extent the differences in the images between the core brands are "on purpose" due to "priority" decisions made by the software designers for the cores. For instance, I'm told the FLIR were emphasizing seeing the critters ... where as the Pulsars (and I think the Trijicons as well) have a smoother image that sees the terrain better. Is one of these really "better" ?? Depends on the definition. Also, again, core performance comparison is not a linear activity. One core might perform "better" in some (thermal) conditions and another might perform "better" in other thermal conditions.

When I first got my first Apex, my neighbors all thought the pulsar had "better" image ... but I thought that was an "illusion".

They compared them within the first 5m of start up when the pulsar auto nuc'd 5 times and the Zeus did not. They were comparing looking at items (like rats) 50yds away. Also, to the extent the difference is due to "contrast" well that can be adjusted, to minimize the differences.
And for me, when I compared them beyond 300yds ... looking at handwarmers on a targets at 500yds, then pulsar could not see the handwarmer, the Zeus 75mm 640 standard could.

So those old Apex had a certain "shock and awe" in their ability to "beat" the Zeus within the first 5 min of start up ... in a "no adjustment" scenario ... but with adjustments and equivalent nucing ... and comparing the images over a broader range of conditions and distances ... the Zeus was a clear winner for me.

==

So in summary ... if you (or others) like the Pulsar Cores over the OASYS ... I don't think I can say "you are wrong" ... similarly, I don't think you can say my liking the OASYS cores is "wrong" ... I might more properly say ... "For the range of conditions I've encountered ... the OASYS cores are more likely to give me the ability to more quickly PID smaller critters at greater distances, then the other cores I've tried". And, right now, I stand by that statement. :)
And again at any distance (over 100yds) I am almost ALWAYS using motion of the critter as well as shape to PID. The critter has not detected me and is doing its thing ... which usually does not involve not moving ... at distances over 100yds. That's the primary scenario. So I can watch it move for seconds if not longer, before making the PID call.
 
Top