Thermal Monocular??

foxrunner

foxrunner

Active member
Opinions between the Rix Pocket K3 and the Pulsar Axiom XQ30 Pro? Both are 384x288 but the Pulsar is double the price of the K3
 
I have the RIX K3 and really like it. My partner has a Pulsar, I'm just not sure what model it is but I will say that it is very nice but for the price difference I don't think it is really necessary as I can see everything I need to see with the K3 just fine.
 
i have the pulsar xq38 (384)and love it. i have no idea about the rix.

the pulsar has some issues with high humidity but what thermal in that range doesnt. switching from white hot to black hot or the reverse also helps.

i can detect movement out to 1,000 plus yards and most times can tell if its deer or canine from the way it moves. even easier at 600 yards and closer.

bear pic

10-26-24 kibbe bear (1).JPG


partner next to dead coyote he killed close to 400 yards

IMG_2867.JPG


my base mag is 3.5, i would find something with a lower base mag for a wider field of view.
 
The past few weeks I've been going over this A LOT because I want to upgrade my scanner as well.

I've also been comparing the exact two that you are and have the same questions. From what I have gathered so far is that whenever it comes to scanners Pulsar leads the way. Their 640 models are said to be some of the best on the market.

However, do I want to spend another $1,000 for a Pulsar whenever I know that the K3 will do all I need it to?
 
You should evaluate how much FOV you will need in scanning. These higher base mag. scanners have a very small FOV. I don't know why they went away from these as it is hard to find wide FOV scanners in almost any format. I have a Helion XP28 with a 22 degree FOV and it is golden IMO. Also have the Helion XP 50 and also the lens for the 38 (bayonet mount scanners). I use the 28 for 98% of my scanning. Use to have the original Pulsar HD and XD 19 scanners and thought they were excellent. Scanners are just for locating something out there and not necessarily IDing it, IMO. If you hunt area's that are not wide open spaces, I would make sure to consider a wider FOV.
 
like i said my pulsar base mag is 3.5, i missed a chance at a coyote that stepped out of a corn field one night, it was approximately 50 yards away from me. because of my high base mag i was looking over it and never saw it that close. but my partner killed it :)
 
I switched scanners this year & went from the 13 degree 3X Phenom 640 to the Iray Micro 640 with 17.5 degree 1.3X.

I'm loving the FOV.
 
I got the 19 384. I took it out in the yard last night and just from looking around my little neighborhood, I’m impressed. I’ll take it out to the plantation this evening and check it out in the actual woods. I’ll be honest, I didn’t realize 384 could be that clear and detailed. It’s a 2 base magnification and steps up to 4, 8, 16. 4 was still clear and you don’t start seeing a little distortion until 8, but even then what you’re looking at was identifiable.
I’ll try and take some video this evening and post it.
My only need for a scanner is so I don’t have to scan with the rifle. Just wanted to know if something is out there, wasn’t expecting the clarity I’m seeing.
 
my pulsar axion is a 384 and really clear on nights with low humidity and still clear enough to identify on nights with high humidity in the 80's and 90's,
 
The pulsar axion xq38 even with base mag of 3.5x still has very close FOV to most base 2x scanners because of it's huge display(same as Thermions(1024x768). the extra clarity gained off of the additional base mag is game changer. I've ran almost all of the newer and older Pulsar scanners and can say without a doubt the original xq38 and xq38lrf are the best 384 scanners ever produced and why to this day I'm still running mine. I've compared it side by side with Helion XPs and its very close to same level of clarity on base mag as the Helion XP's 640 sensor is on 4x. I'm currently buying an Axion2 XG35LRF which due to it's 640 sensor should be a step up in clarity and same FOV that I currently have. The onlydownside to the Axion XQ38 was no video recording....and this is why they are the best kept secret. No videos for people to research.
 
Driven2tri24 said:
The pulsar axion xq38 even with base mag of 3.5x still has very close FOV to most base 2x scanners because of it's huge display(same as Thermions(1024x768). the extra clarity gained off of the additional base mag is game changer. I've ran almost all of the newer and older Pulsar scanners and can say without a doubt the original xq38 and xq38lrf are the best 384 scanners ever produced and why to this day I'm still running mine. I've compared it side by side with Helion XPs and its very close to same level of clarity on base mag as the Helion XP's 640 sensor is on 4x. I'm currently buying an Axion2 XG35LRF which due to it's 640 sensor should be a step up in clarity and same FOV that I currently have. The onlydownside to the Axion XQ38 was no video recording....and this is why they are the best kept secret. No videos for people to research.
Click to expand...

i can video with my axion xq38
 
foxrunner said:
I ended up getting the Rix K3
Great unit!!
Click to expand...
ditto i have the same
light as a feather .....

My biggest bitch is the mic gain or input is far too sensitive...
when recording its terrible ...
watch this vid I made ....I'm only pushing the buttons ...

LOUD !!

 
Last edited:


Write your reply...
Back
Top