NEW Pulsar Thermion Thermal Rifle Scopes and Axion Thermal Monoculars!


Thanks Ernest for some very good specs on the various scopes. I may just print that to have a quick reference.

Yeah, you are right - I really don’t need it. But, I sure do like it. LOL. And, if I hock the farm I won’t have anywhere to hunt.

I realize ATN isn’t the most popular kid on the block, actually is unwelcomed by many, but when you look at the range of scopes they have to offer - magnification vs. field of view vs. eye relief vs. resolution vs. price, they have the thermal scope field well covered. There’s something available for everyone regardless of budget, where you hunt or whether you wear eye glasses or not. The Thor 4 in 2-8x with 17 core and it’s field of view, for the price is hard to beat for most general calling needs. If you want a scope with more magnification or more resolution, it’s available. If you want less magnification and price, it’s available. I'm not trying to be a sales rep for ATN, but am just wondering why can’t Pulsar get with it and offer similar??

 
There's a reason we don't sell ATN. Failure rate was just way too high when we did our initial investigating (18% PLUS). Pulsar's failure rate is .5%! Not even close...
 

Tom, I remember you mentioning that point earlier somewhere. It’s evident there is no comparison with reliability based on the failure rate figures you posted. That’s why so many hunters, myself included, want Pulsar, and that’s why I bought Pulsar.

I have been disappointed to see Pulsar’s new line of scopes and monoculars that sacrifices fov, eye relief and added too much magnification that just won’t cut it for a lot of hunters. That’s been my gripe all along with Pulsar and not that ATN is better but only that they have considered hunters needs with their options.

 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 6mm06 I realize ATN isn’t the most popular kid on the block, actually is unwelcomed by many, but when you look at the range of scopes they have to offer - magnification vs. field of view vs. eye relief vs. resolution vs. price, they have the thermal scope field well covered. There’s something available for everyone regardless of budget, where you hunt or whether you wear eye glasses or not. The Thor 4 in 2-8x with 17 core and it’s field of view, for the price is hard to beat for most general calling needs. If you want a scope with more magnification or more resolution, it’s available. If you want less magnification and price, it’s available. I'm not trying to be a sales rep for ATN, but am just wondering why can’t Pulsar get with it and offer similar??
6MM06, you make very good points as you always do. The part that I see differently is just because Pulsar has released some 12 micron high mag scopes and scanners, they haven't abandoned all their other options. They did discontinue the Apex line which I know was a popular lower cost option. What Pulsar did with the 12 micron Thermals is add some high mag, lower cost options. About the only thing missing is some high mag, high quality options. This would come with some 640x480 12 micron scopes, which I assume are next. Their line up may not fit everyone's hunting situation but it rounds out their offerings very well. Here is a list of their current scopes:

pulsar.gif

Pulsar has options from 1.2x to 5.5x and range in price from $1899 to 5K retail. They cover the market very well. They also carry the Helion, Accolade, and Axion for scanners with various submodels in each.

I realize a lot of hunters in tight quarters or hunting large sounders of hogs want a large FOV. You can get there with the 640x480. However, as you mentioned, some may want cheaper options than 640x480 scopes. You can also get there another way. You can either increase the microns (12 to 17, 17 to 25), and/or you can decrease the objective size. When you do either or both of these, you end up losing quality of image, as well as positive ID distance.

A great example is my hunting partner's Flir PTS233. It is a good scope for 2k. However, when the humidity is high, you might as well leave it at home. To get a cheaper priced 320 core scope with a wider FOV, Flir had to use a small 19mm objective. Due to the smaller objective, it doesn't do well in high humidity. When the humidity drops, it looks like a 3-4K scope. Pulsar took the same approach with the RXQ30 which has a 22mm objective.

Overall, Pulsar has done as much as virtually any other brand covering a large spectrum of the hunting needs.
 
Kirsch, all that you conclude is true with a caveat. You're shooting a FLIR because you had zero confidence in the Pulsar Trail holding POI. I know Pulsar says they fixed the issue, but there are still too many reports of hunters who sent them in to be replaced and still have the same issue. My hunting buddy, has been through two Trail XQ 50's in about 8 months. The first one just didn't have a decent quality of clarity, and the second one started showing snow in the lower half of the screen on hot nights. He is now awaiting a third one.

While Pulsar (Sellmark) CS has been outstanding for both of us, there is still the issue of these scopes not holding up very well. It is not just us either. Numerous people who post here have the same or similar issues. Several of them have RA numbers right now and are just waiting for the least intrusive time to send in their scopes. The problem is they don't know what they will get for replacement, and hesitate to send in what they have.

I loved my first Apex XD50A and would still be shooting it if the NUC shutter had not stuck closed. I received a great Apex XQ50 as a warranty replacement and it has a picture that is so good that my hunting buddy is constantly disappointed with his Trail XQ50. I'm on my third HD19A, all under warranty and it is excellent as a scanner out to over 500 yds. I love the Pulsars and don't want to change brands, but we're not talking chicken feed for one of these scopes. Mine aren't even the high end, but they seem to have held up better than some of those.
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleUpKirsch, all that you conclude is true with a caveat. You're shooting a FLIR because you had zero confidence in the Pulsar Trail holding POI. I know Pulsar says they fixed the issue, but there are still too many reports of hunters who sent them in to be replaced and still have the same issue.
I was simply answering 6mm06s comment about ATN having a broader range of thermals. You are absolutely correct on why I moved to my Flir when I did. I have never hidden the fact that I was one of the people who had a moving POI issue related to extreme temps with my Pulsar Trail. I still own a Pulsar Helion, and most likely will give the Thermion a try in the future as well. As far as quality, I would trust a Pulsar product and their Customer Service over ATN. It was the "Why doesn't Pulsar get with it and offer similar options" which prompted my response.

If I was writing about Flir, unfortunately, the write up would be short. They still haven't released their 12 micron 640 scopes, and their 320x240 scopes are 1.6x, 4x, and 6x base mag, so they have far less choices overall than Pulsar. I have said on many occasions, I believe Flir should have released a 30-35mm scope in the low to mid 2.x base mag range. With that said, I do really like my Flir PTS536. However, it isn't for someone looking for a wide FOV.

Originally Posted By: DoubleUpI received a great Apex XQ50 as a warranty replacement and it has a picture that is so good that my hunting buddy is constantly disappointed with his Trail XQ50. They have the same core so either you got a really lucky one, or he got a really poor one or both. As you mentioned, Pulsar has great Customer Service, so if under warranty, I'd probably have your buddy send it in but it sounds like he may have already done that. Hopefully, this one is the keeper. I'm sure you have already tried to help him with his brightness and contrast settings to clear up his scope, but if not, that will make a huge difference.


 
Kirsch I wasn't insinuating that you were trying to hide something. I appreciate all the straightforward information that you supply. You are a great asset to this board as well as Night Goggles. I suppose all of us tend to see these scopes through the prism of where and how we hunt. Although I gave up some FOV going to the XQ50 in place of the XD50A, that never bothered me. Where I hunt on the east coast, we don't normally hunt in small fields. Of course our big fields are nothing compared to North Dakota, but we're able to see several hundred yards on most stands.
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleUpKirsch I wasn't insinuating that you were trying to hide something. I appreciate all the straightforward information that you supply. You are a great asset to this board as well as Night Goggles. Very kind words, thank you. I just want to make sure people realize just because I became Pro Staff for Night Goggles, my responses aren't going to change, nor has Night Goggles asked me to respond a specific way.

Originally Posted By: DoubleUpWhere I hunt on the east coast, we don't normally hunt in small fields. Of course our big fields are nothing compared to North Dakota, but we're able to see several hundred yards on most stands. I believe most people adjust to their thermal. Glad to hear the Apex XQ50 is working for you. It is a very nice scope.

I might have missed a few multiples with my 4x base mag, but I also shot better than with any thermal I have ever used which I believe can be somewhat attributed to the higher base mag. I have said for many years, "One is better than None." I still shot a quad, lots of triples, and lots of multiples. It probably isn't fair to compare my success with multiples to other years because this is the first year I shot suppressed.
 
I have been pretty outspoken I guess about what I see in various scopes. I don’t owe any allegience to any company. My point all along is that the “more affordable” Pulsar scopes, such as the Apex line and the HD19a monocular that had good field of view and relatively good eye relief, have been discontinued and replaced with more magnification, less fov and less eye relief. I mentioned earlier in this post or other related ones that going to a 640 scope is not an option for me nor is it for a lot of other guys. I am just not going to sacrifice my finances and pay that kind of money for an electronic device that I know most likely will cause me problems and probably won’t last very long without some issue. Once the warranty is out it becomes my problem and nothing more than a good-looking paperweight.

ATN, be it good or bad, has the field well covered. This is not a discussion about quality or customer service. It is about variety of models that suits just about everyone. If they ever do get their quality and customer service up to par with Pulsar, then Pulsar and others had better watch out.

The RXQ scope, in my mind, is not a contender for me to consider with its green tint, no adjustable objective and no video capability. The only other way to get a Pulsar with less magnification and better field of view is to go to the XP line, which I don’t intend to do given the cost factor, not to mention the POI problems it has been plagued with.

Pulsar dropped the ball, plain and simple. They should have continued the Apex line, or have new models in the same category with similar specs.

 
Originally Posted By: 6mm06Pulsar dropped the ball, plain and simple. They should have continued the Apex line, or have new models in the same category with similar specs.

I agree David.

It's obvious that the engineers designing the units have never spent any time in the woods actually using a unit in a hunting scenario where sometimes a wide FOV is absolutely critical. I have no idea why they would put such a high base magnification in EVERY unit. You can always use digital zoom but the base mag locks in your FOV.

You get a wider FOV with any given lens size using a 640 core vs a 320 core so maybe it's some type of marketing strategy to increase 640 core unit sales.
 
Last edited:
All my numerous thermal units have a base magnification of 1.0X, although three of them that I love the most have a 0.5X base mag!

I keep telling all the thermal engineers I meet that I love the 0.5X base magnification with the SWFOV.

Just like I tell all the IR laser makers that 0.1mV IR lasers are super accurate and great to hunt with compared to blooming huge 0.5mV or higher lasers.....

Apparently, very few engineers ever hunt at night....
 
Originally Posted By: SkyPupAll my numerous thermal units have a base magnification of 1.0X, although three of them that I love the most have a 0.5X base mag!

I keep telling all the thermal engineers I meet that I love the 0.5X base magnification with the SWFOV.

Just like I tell all the IR laser makers that 0.1mV IR lasers are super accurate and great to hunt with compared to blooming huge 0.5mV or higher lasers.....

Apparently, very few engineers ever hunt at night....

Spot on SP...The next IR pointer you may see WILL be .2mW with a variable output! We hunt at night and I'm still an engineer type from back in the day. Great post!!!
 
I was worried about fov as well. I was just out playing with the thermion xm38. Seems fine, the 4x is perfect with pip in 8x. Coyotes in big trouble
 
I like the more magnification for the cost. I current have a trijicon MKII that I normally shoot on 2x. So it's basically the same magnification for less $. I guess it all depends on how you hunt.
 
Back
Top