User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/28/2019 6:27:42 AM EDT
[#1]
Since you’re confining it to scopes, I’m assuming something that can be weapon-mounted.
1) BAE Oasys StalkIR UTMx 2) L3 PAS-13G (V2) 3) N-Vision Halo LR 4) IR Hunter MK III 5) BAE Oasys SkeetIR X 6) PAS-13C (V3) For clip-ons, the BAE UTC-xii. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2019 8:15:40 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since you’re confining it to scopes, I’m assuming something that can be weapon-mounted. 1) BAE Oasys StalkIR UTMx 2) L3 PAS-13G (V2) 3) N-Vision Halo LR 4) IR Hunter MK III 5) BAE Oasys SkeetIR X 6) PAS-13C (V3) For clip-ons, the BAE UTC-xii. Any idea where the Pulsar Trail XP50 640 would be in comparison? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2019 8:22:37 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That Halo LR looks interesting; especially since the two above it are 5-figure items. Any idea where the Pulsar Trail XP50 640 would be in comparison? The 3x sucks as a scanner though so the XP50 is the best of both worlds for scanning & shooting of the ones I've had. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2019 8:24:30 PM EDT
[#4]
Never used the Pulsar, but they generally seem to compete well at a lower cost. I’d love to compare one directly to the Halo and PAS-G. I doubt I’ll buy one just to satisfy that curiosity, but would be happy to meet up to compare with someone who does.
Right now I’m in Newfoundland sea kayaking with humpbacks. When I get home next week I have a new toy to play with — a Schweet helmet-mounted fusion unit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2019 9:58:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've had 5 thermals (4 with a 640 core) including the XP50. I had an Armasight Zeus (not the pro) 640/75mm/3x that, as purely a scope, was better than the others. After the firmware update it had the best image of all the ones I've tried. The 3x sucks as a scanner though so the XP50 is the best of both worlds for scanning & shooting of the ones I've had. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2019 6:49:14 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Never used the Pulsar, but they generally seem to compete well at a lower cost. I’d love to compare one directly to the Halo and PAS-G. I doubt I’ll buy one just to satisfy that curiosity, but would be happy to meet up to compare with someone who does. Right now I’m in Newfoundland sea kayaking with humpbacks. When I get home next week I have a new toy to play with — a Schweet helmet-mounted fusion unit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2019 6:57:55 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now that's interesting. I always wondered about the Armasight Zeus. Random thought: The L3 seems to keep it's resolution pretty damn well after zooming in. I agree about The armasight 75. Image was always top notch. I have no idea what made it noticeably better than their others . I was told at one point, it had “special glass”. No idea if that was true. It was told to me by somebody trying to sell me one . Wished I had kept it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2019 9:32:38 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ....
I agree about The armasight 75. Image was always top notch. I have no idea what made it noticeably better than their others . I was told at one point, it had "special glass". No idea if that was true. It was told to me by somebody trying to sell me one . Wished I had kept it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2019 10:06:28 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From what I have gathered, FLIR/Armasight has more of a focus on making heat signatures pop and Trijicon (BAE) has more of a focus on environmental detail. Could be the noticable difference? And I agree with Tmm1270: if we can get some comparison pictures of the units listed above, that would not only be useful, but completely badass. Flir breach, PTS233, and Vue640. The flir all do do the same thing. They all have a tendency to produce what I call a "false positive". I prefer black hot or the new outdoor alert and it could be specific to that pallet? I can be riding along and think I see something a good ways away, stop to get out to check it with my pulsar 640 or IRD mark 2 and it's not even there? Whatever Flir paints as hot doesn't even show up on the other systems. It may have just been a tuft of grass or something else that's not an animal. This is not a problem for me just an observation I've had and wondered about. Your post above seems relevant to my observation. edit: I have the XP50 and an IRD mark 2 - 35mm. I personally think that that of my two, the edge in clarity goes to the pulsar. Probably due to the fact that it has a front focus capability? I have compared them side-by-side at the exact same time and felt like I could identify deer versus hogs a little farther with the pulsar. Of everything I have looked through including the mark 3- 60 mm and LWTS clip on, I felt like the LWTS has the best overall image. But I have not compared those two side-by-side either? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2019 11:17:46 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: if we can get some comparison pictures of the units listed above, that would not only be useful, but completely badass. I'm not the guy for that job. I have put my Trail XP50 up against TWSs costing twice as much, and I always walked away thankful for what I have, based on other, ancillary factors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2019 11:22:37 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since you’re confining it to scopes, I’m assuming something that can be weapon-mounted. 1) BAE Oasys StalkIR UTMx 2) L3 PAS-13G (V2) 3) N-Vision Halo LR 4) IR Hunter MK III 5) BAE Oasys SkeetIR X 6) PAS-13C (V3) For clip-ons, the BAE UTC-xii. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2019 1:38:19 PM EDT
[#12]
The video posted in this thread had a bunch of different thermals. Not the super high end in this thread but the Halo looked good.
https://www.ar15.com/forums/armory/Is-anyone-thing-about-getting-the-new-Pulsar-Thermion-/18-501618/&page=1&anc=5154595#i5154184 Might as well repost the vid.  30-50 Feral Hogs? How about Hundreds... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2019 2:11:58 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unfortunately this will never telegraph well over the internet. Comparison pictures have as much or more to do with the recording device used to capture the image as with the quality of the image itself. Even if you used the exact same device to take each picture, you'd be photographing a video screen on the back of the scope, and there are too many variables in play for the comparison to be accurate. In-person comparisons are the only way to truly get a feel. If someone has all the scopes and is committed to giving an honest, unbiased report (and I think there are guys in here that can do that), this info would be quite helpful for the group. I'm not the guy for that job. I have put my Trail XP50 up against TWSs costing twice as much, and I always walked away thankful for what I have, based on other, ancillary factors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: if we can get some comparison pictures of the units listed above, that would not only be useful, but completely badass. I'm not the guy for that job. I have put my Trail XP50 up against TWSs costing twice as much, and I always walked away thankful for what I have, based on other, ancillary factors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2019 2:21:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote Historyedit: I have the XP50 and an IRD mark 2 - 35mm. I personally think that that of my two, the edge in clarity goes to the pulsar. Probably due to the fact that it has a front focus capability? I have compared them side-by-side at the exact same time and felt like I could identify deer versus hogs a little farther with the pulsar. Of everything I have looked through including the mark 3- 60 mm and LWTS clip on, I felt like the LWTS has the best overall image. But I have not compared those two side-by-side either? For example, when I was shopping around, I heard the Trail XP50 was 90% of the image of what the Trijicon MKIII was (opinions vary). So with that premise, is the Halo LR or MKIII 90% of the image of what the LWTS is? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2019 3:35:32 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I personally think that that of my two, the edge in clarity goes to the pulsar. Probably due to the fact that it has a front focus capability? I have compared them side-by-side at the exact same time and felt like I could identify deer versus hogs a little farther with the pulsar. Deer through the pulsar xp38 unzoomed  Deer through the REAP where I actually zoomed in on a screenshot of the screen at a magnification I can't remember. 
And then a comparison between the size of the two... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2019 4:58:24 PM EDT
[#16]
It is really difficult to compare without more details. You can't just say I want to know what has the best image. Yes image clarity is important, but at what range?
For instance the Pulsar XP50 has a 17 micron core and a base mag of 1.6x and a FOV of 12.4 x 9.3. The Pulsar XP series is great for hunting where a wide field of view is critical. While the Nvision Halo LR for instance is a 12 micron core with base mag of 3x and FOV of 9 x 7. The Pulsar should look good because the mag is so low, but as soon as you digitally zoom the scope to get ID on an object further away, the picture loses quality very quickly. This is why determine what it will be used for (species), in what type of terrain, and what your budget is, and a good dealer can recommend what would work well for most users. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2019 6:06:36 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is really difficult to compare without more details. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2019 6:29:04 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not to mention "at what humidity." For certain TWSs, humidity is kryptonite. Even a cheap thermal can produce spectacular results when used within its ideal performance envelope. I remember being amazed by the ThermApp when it first became available, and then testing it just after a thunderstorm at 8:00pm shortly after the sun set. It was almost completely washed out, where the UTM and LWTS continued to be usable. Granted, that was some years ago, but I don’t think thermal tech has come far at all since then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2019 9:27:21 PM EDT
[#19]
Valid points, but to simplify it, all conditions equal. It's very easy to get into the weeds with this kind of generic question, I know.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2019 3:40:42 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is really difficult to compare without more details. You can't just say I want to know what has the best image. Yes image clarity is important, but at what range? For instance the Pulsar XP50 has a 17 micron core and a base mag of 1.6x and a FOV of 12.4 x 9.3. The Pulsar XP series is great for hunting where a wide field of view is critical. While the Nvision Halo LR for instance is a 12 micron core with base mag of 3x and FOV of 9 x 7. The Pulsar should look good because the mag is so low, but as soon as you digitally zoom the scope to get ID on an object further away, the picture loses quality very quickly. This is why determine what it will be used for (species), in what type of terrain, and what your budget is, and a good dealer can recommend what would work well for most users. It still has the 640X480 & 12 micron sensor but a smaller (25mm) lens, which I assume would give it a wider field of view and make it better for hunting. Does moving up to the 12 micron sensor improve the image quality over the 17 micron cores? Or does the benefit show up in other things like scope size and battery life? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2019 4:06:39 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone here have any time behind the Halo (non-LR)? It still has the 640X480 & 12 micron sensor but a smaller (25mm) lens, which I assume would give it a wider field of view and make it better for hunting. Does moving up to the 12 micron sensor improve the image quality over the 17 micron cores? Or does the benefit show up in other things like scope size and battery life? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2019 5:34:04 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only thing 12um does is allow greater range using smaller lenses, which keeps costs and overall size and weight down. It shouldn’t inherently provide a better image. In fact, the older UTMs used 17um and (I believe) 25um cores and image quality was exquisite. In fact, you could argue that smaller pixels are inherently a bad thing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anyone here have any time behind the Halo (non-LR)? It still has the 640X480 & 12 micron sensor but a smaller (25mm) lens, which I assume would give it a wider field of view and make it better for hunting. Does moving up to the 12 micron sensor improve the image quality over the 17 micron cores? Or does the benefit show up in other things like scope size and battery life? I assume pixel size, sensor size (pixel count) and the objective lens all need to be appropriately matched for the desired range and FOV. After that it's up to the processor to read the sensor and put an image on the display. Why did BAE shrink their pixels as opposed to making a bigger sensor with more 17 micron pixels? I assume someone there determined that smaller was better? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2019 5:50:56 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're going to have to explain that last sentence. I assume pixel size, sensor size (pixel count) and the objective lens all need to be appropriately matched for the desired range and FOV. After that it's up to the processor to read the sensor and put an image on the display. Why did BAE shrink their pixels as opposed to making a bigger sensor with more 17 micron pixels? I assume someone there determined that smaller was better? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2019 5:56:54 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're going to have to explain that last sentence. I assume pixel size, sensor size (pixel count) and the objective lens all need to be appropriately matched for the desired range and FOV. After that it's up to the processor to read the sensor and put an image on the display. Why did BAE shrink their pixels as opposed to making a bigger sensor with more 17 micron pixels? I assume someone there determined that smaller was better? Someone much smarter than me will be along to amplify or correct what I’m saying, but the drive to cram more pixel wells into the same area has nothing to do with making a better sensor as much as it does decreasing costs and device size. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2019 11:43:19 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Smaller pixel sites doesn’t mean a better image, it means less germanium and small device sizes resulting in cheaper prices. All things being equal (and they rarely are), larger pixels hold more photons and inherently offer more signal to noise. Someone much smarter than me will be along to amplify or correct what I’m saying, but the drive to cram more pixel wells into the same area has nothing to do with making a better sensor as much as it does decreasing costs and device size. For instance when using a 100mm lens on a full frame FX Nikon camera you get 100 mm of focal length. With the same lens on Nikon DX camera you get a multiplication factor of 1.5 times the focal length due to the smaller sensor. Now I am somewhat confused on how to figure the base magnification of a TWS device. I picked up on of the EMX MK2A-1 thermals and its rated at FOV 12x9 with a 30um sensor. I measured the objective and its around 50mm. How does one figure the magnification? Its not listed on the spec sheet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2019 12:49:45 PM EDT
[#26]
Is the EMX 320 or 640? That makes quite a difference.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2019 1:03:20 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is the EMX 320 or 640? That makes quite a difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2019 8:41:15 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Go check out lone Star boars latest video. Good explanation of this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You're going to have to explain that last sentence. I assume pixel size, sensor size (pixel count) and the objective lens all need to be appropriately matched for the desired range and FOV. After that it's up to the processor to read the sensor and put an image on the display. Why did BAE shrink their pixels as opposed to making a bigger sensor with more 17 micron pixels? I assume someone there determined that smaller was better?  Thermal Scopes 17 MICRON VS 12 MICRON? WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW BEFORE BUYING |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2019 1:43:35 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryCounted several errors, nothing severe and could be explainable by the guy doing a less than perfect job choosing his words. Glad someone explains that a larger pixel size collects more thermal energy and has the potential to deliver a cleaner lower noise image.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2019 2:10:22 AM EDT
[#30]
A bit of a hijack, but no one else seems to be updating the FPNI's list.
From the data I could find I think this is correct: Pulsar XP50 50mm lens -- 17 micron -- magnification 1.6x with FOV: 12.4x9.3 / 21.8x16.3 (degrees / m @ 100 m) Halo (non-LR) 25mm lens -- 12 micron -- magnification: 1.75x with FOV: 18 x 14 (degrees) Am I interpreting these numbers correctly by saying the Halo has slightly more magnification AND a wider field of view than the XP50? That doesn't make sense intuitively, but I think that's what the numbers say, right? Without seeing them side-by-side I'm not sure if the theoretical gain is worth the actual $ step up, but it's keeping me from pulling the trigger on an XP50. @N-VisionOptics |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2019 11:07:39 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A bit of a hijack, but no one else seems to be updating the FPNI's list. From the data I could find I think this is correct: Pulsar XP50 50mm lens -- 17 micron -- magnification 1.6x with FOV: 12.4x9.3 / 21.8x16.3 (degrees / m @ 100 m) Halo (non-LR) 25mm lens -- 12 micron -- magnification: 1.75x with FOV: 18 x 14 (degrees) Am I interpreting these numbers correctly by saying the Halo has slightly more magnification AND a wider field of view than the XP50? That doesn't make sense intuitively, but I think that's what the numbers say, right? Without seeing them side-by-side I'm not sure if the theoretical gain is worth the actual $ step up, but it's keeping me from pulling the trigger on an XP50. @N-VisionOptics http://pulsarnv.com/pdf.php?src=http://www.pulsarnv.com/manuals/Trail%20manual.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2019 11:24:42 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Page 2 of the XP50 manual seems to say the 12.4/9.3 FOV is correct *when the scope is at 8X.* http://pulsarnv.com/pdf.php?src=http://www.pulsarnv.com/manuals/Trail%20manual.pdf Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A bit of a hijack, but no one else seems to be updating the FPNI's list. From the data I could find I think this is correct: Pulsar XP50 50mm lens -- 17 micron -- magnification 1.6x with FOV: 12.4x9.3 / 21.8x16.3 (degrees / m @ 100 m) Halo (non-LR) 25mm lens -- 12 micron -- magnification: 1.75x with FOV: 18 x 14 (degrees) Am I interpreting these numbers correctly by saying the Halo has slightly more magnification AND a wider field of view than the XP50? That doesn't make sense intuitively, but I think that's what the numbers say, right? Without seeing them side-by-side I'm not sure if the theoretical gain is worth the actual $ step up, but it's keeping me from pulling the trigger on an XP50. @N-VisionOptics http://pulsarnv.com/pdf.php?src=http://www.pulsarnv.com/manuals/Trail%20manual.pdf The number I used above were from the Pulsar Trail page and I read them as horizontal x vertical (HxV) as indicated there. The manual doesn't appear to have vertical FOV data. So much for trying to compare apples to apples. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2019 12:08:45 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A bit of a hijack, but no one else seems to be updating the FPNI's list. From the data I could find I think this is correct: Pulsar XP50 50mm lens -- 17 micron -- magnification 1.6x with FOV: 12.4x9.3 / 21.8x16.3 (degrees / m @ 100 m) Halo (non-LR) 25mm lens -- 12 micron -- magnification: 1.75x with FOV: 18 x 14 (degrees) Am I interpreting these numbers correctly by saying the Halo has slightly more magnification AND a wider field of view than the XP50? That doesn't make sense intuitively, but I think that's what the numbers say, right? Without seeing them side-by-side I'm not sure if the theoretical gain is worth the actual $ step up, but it's keeping me from pulling the trigger on an XP50. @N-VisionOptics |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2019 12:28:18 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
12 micron scopes will have more base mag vs a 17 micron scope with everything else being equal. Lower focal lengths (combination of objective size and aperture) will have a wider FOV. So, the math does work out. One thing I will say is your specs said 50mm lens for the XP50. 50 is actually the focal length, so with a F1.2 lens, the objective is not quite 42mm. One thing bigger objectives tend to help with (besides gaining more mag) is to help in high humidity conditions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A bit of a hijack, but no one else seems to be updating the FPNI's list. From the data I could find I think this is correct: Pulsar XP50 50mm lens -- 17 micron -- magnification 1.6x with FOV: 12.4x9.3 / 21.8x16.3 (degrees / m @ 100 m) Halo (non-LR) 25mm lens -- 12 micron -- magnification: 1.75x with FOV: 18 x 14 (degrees) Am I interpreting these numbers correctly by saying the Halo has slightly more magnification AND a wider field of view than the XP50? That doesn't make sense intuitively, but I think that's what the numbers say, right? Without seeing them side-by-side I'm not sure if the theoretical gain is worth the actual $ step up, but it's keeping me from pulling the trigger on an XP50. @N-VisionOptics I'm in MN looking to primarily chase coyotes in the Fall & Winter so humidity isn't one of my main worries (I assume, never having used or owned thermal.) but that's an interesting data point for any potential Summer use. How much difference does it make? Is a 25mm going to be junk in the Summer or just a bit degraded in comparison with a larger objective? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2019 1:39:50 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
The Pulsar web page and the manual aren't consistent. I'd read the manual as saying the FOV is 12.4 degrees at the widest 1.6x magnification 1x zoom, and 9.3 degrees at 8x zoom or 12.4x magnification. The number I used above were from the Pulsar Trail page and I read them as horizontal x vertical (HxV) as indicated there. The manual doesn't appear to have vertical FOV data. So much for trying to compare apples to apples. 12.4 x 21.8 = 270.32 14 x 18 = 252 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2019 4:49:26 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I could be wrong on the absolute measurement (50 vs 42mm), but either way it's bigger than the Halo 25mm. I'm in MN looking to primarily chase coyotes in the Fall & Winter so humidity isn't one of my main worries (I assume, never having used or owned thermal.) but that's an interesting data point for any potential Summer use. How much difference does it make? Is a 25mm going to be junk in the Summer or just a bit degraded in comparison with a larger objective? I can give you an example with 2 Flirs. I own a Flir PTS536 and it has a 50mm lens. My hunting partner has the Flir PTS233 and it has a 19mm lens. It is the exact same unit with the exception of the objective size. On high humidity nights (90%+), I could see coyotes just fine, and he couldn't even see the truck to get back to it. He did shoot some coyotes when the humidity would drop and it worked OK. He recently got it out during a Summer evening, and was shocked as the picture was fantastic. It was far better than any time he used it all winter. He has since sold the PTS233 because it is almost useless in higher humidity nights as we can't hunt coyotes at night until our deer season closes in ND. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2019 4:59:48 PM EDT
[#37]
I like my REAP IRMS 35-2 but my brother's Pulsar XP38 is no slouch.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2019 5:07:19 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, so then the Trail XP50 has a larger FOV than the Halo. And it is also true that the Halo's horizontal FOV is wider. 12.4 x 21.8 = 270.32 14 x 18 = 252 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Pulsar web page and the manual aren't consistent. I'd read the manual as saying the FOV is 12.4 degrees at the widest 1.6x magnification 1x zoom, and 9.3 degrees at 8x zoom or 12.4x magnification. The number I used above were from the Pulsar Trail page and I read them as horizontal x vertical (HxV) as indicated there. The manual doesn't appear to have vertical FOV data. So much for trying to compare apples to apples. 12.4 x 21.8 = 270.32 14 x 18 = 252 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2019 5:13:09 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You will be surprised how high the humidity is at night in MN. It is actually higher at night than it is during the summer. I hunt ND and there are a lot of 90%+ humidity nights during the winter including nights with what I call Ice/Fog. Thermals in ND and MN will look better at night during the summer than during the winter on average. The one difference is when you get some snow on the ground, the animals do pop better because of the temp difference. However, as far as overall picture, the scope will look better on most Summer, Fall nights in comparison to Winter. I haven't run the Halo 25mm. Halo gets great reviews for their image, so I would be surprised if it wasn't useable on high humidity evenings but in general a bigger objective will help with humidity. I can give you an example with 2 Flirs. I own a Flir PTS536 and it has a 50mm lens. My hunting partner has the Flir PTS233 and it has a 19mm lens. It is the exact same unit with the exception of the objective size. On high humidity nights (90%+), I could see coyotes just fine, and he couldn't even see the truck to get back to it. He did shoot some coyotes when the humidity would drop and it worked OK. He recently got it out during a Summer evening, and was shocked as the picture was fantastic. It was far better than any time he used it all winter. He has since sold the PTS233 because it is almost useless in higher humidity nights as we can't hunt coyotes at night until our deer season closes in ND. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I could be wrong on the absolute measurement (50 vs 42mm), but either way it's bigger than the Halo 25mm. I'm in MN looking to primarily chase coyotes in the Fall & Winter so humidity isn't one of my main worries (I assume, never having used or owned thermal.) but that's an interesting data point for any potential Summer use. How much difference does it make? Is a 25mm going to be junk in the Summer or just a bit degraded in comparison with a larger objective? I can give you an example with 2 Flirs. I own a Flir PTS536 and it has a 50mm lens. My hunting partner has the Flir PTS233 and it has a 19mm lens. It is the exact same unit with the exception of the objective size. On high humidity nights (90%+), I could see coyotes just fine, and he couldn't even see the truck to get back to it. He did shoot some coyotes when the humidity would drop and it worked OK. He recently got it out during a Summer evening, and was shocked as the picture was fantastic. It was far better than any time he used it all winter. He has since sold the PTS233 because it is almost useless in higher humidity nights as we can't hunt coyotes at night until our deer season closes in ND. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2019 5:31:53 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your Pulsar math is wrong no matter which data set you're using. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2019 11:10:14 PM EDT
[#41]
I've only had a Pulsar Apex 38, Apex 50 and an IR Hunter MKIII.
The apex to me seems to be about 70-75% of the IR Hunter and the IR hunter was amazing. I will have another one some day. Had to sell it to fund some college tuition for son. So my pick would be the Trijicon. I liked the 38 better than the 50 for the better field of view. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2019 7:43:25 AM EDT
[#42]
I vote the FLIR HISS-XLR #1 everything else listed is way behind IMHO, not even close.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2019 9:23:34 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I vote the FLIR HISS-XLR #1 everything else listed is way behind IMHO, not even close. Too bad it weighs 4-lbs. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2019 12:07:19 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I vote the FLIR HISS-XLR #1 everything else listed is way behind IMHO, not even close. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2019 1:13:31 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mmmmm.... MWIR goodness. Too bad it weighs 4-lbs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I vote the FLIR HISS-XLR #1 everything else listed is way behind IMHO, not even close. Too bad it weighs 4-lbs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2019 10:50:48 PM EDT
[#46]
Son of a bitch...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2019 5:17:53 PM EDT
[#47]
I had to look that one up. While the browsing the rest of the page they have two units who's range detection specification reads:
"Available upon request" I guess that's some super top secret shit!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2019 7:16:42 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I vote the FLIR HISS-XLR #1 everything else listed is way behind IMHO, not even close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2019 8:23:42 PM EDT
[#49]
After one uses a HISS, NOTHING compares with Triji, N-Vision, or anything else in the non cooled array dept. I would place the FLIR DUNS in 2nd place. I've used the HISS more than the DUNS, but the DUNS is a great hybrid fusion device. You can also dial up or down the amount of I^2 or thermal one engagement environment dictates.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2019 8:58:23 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After one uses a HISS, NOTHING compares with Triji, N-Vision, or anything else in the non cooled array dept. I would place the FLIR DUNS in 2nd place. I've used the HISS more than the DUNS, but the DUNS is a great hybrid fusion device. You can also dial up or down the amount of I^2 or thermal one engagement environment dictates. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
