Wide FOV thermal scanner

Darknight

Darknight

Member
I currently own a FLIR Scion OTM266 as well as an old Pulsar Quantum hd19a.
I hadn't looked through the Pulsar in a while and still prefer its wide field of view.
Is there any thermal monocular on the market today that has a wide field of view like the Pulsar Quantum hd19a?
I've spoken with case-nh on this but welcome all ideas.

Thanks!
 
I also have the Pulsar Quantum HD19A. Loved this until the warranty ran out & started having issues with it sent back to Sellmark twice to get it fixed as I have to reconfigure it manually about every 5 minutes. Cost me $$ in shipping with it returned unfixed both times šŸ˜” ( I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT ANOTHER IF THEY WERE STILL MAKING THEM )

With that being said Iā€™m using it again now as my grandson has been scanning with me lately.

This is what I use now BUT I preferred the HD19A field of view ! Go with the lowest magnification for a scanner guys !!

Pulsar Axion 2 XQ35 LRF 2-8 thermal monocular. I do like the LRF & PIP option ! I never move it off 2, thatā€™s what my scope is for.
 
Thanks PA. Mick. Do you feel the Axion has less FOV? Do coyotes get recognized by the sensor around 500 yards?
What issues did you have with the hd19a?
 
I wish thermal manufacturers would get on the same sheet of music as day optics and give an actual FOV of feet @100 yards instead of the way they describe FOV with degrees and then you having to do math.

That said you might consider the new Telos that is supposedly upgradable and you can change objectives as well as the 1024 core. The big negative i see is it uses proprietary batteries instead of a much more versatile 18650. Other than that its probably the nicest dedicated scanner currently coming out. Back in September I went to Nevada and my hunting buddy there is running the new Pulsar Merger and it has a tremendous image and wide FOV, the only downside is its physically bigger and heavier as its a binocular and it EATS battery life. External power is a must to hunt long hours.

If I could design a perfect scanner it would run off 18650, have a giant FOV about 2-4x magnification (more magnification if they could figure out how to combine it with giant FOV) optical zoom instead of just digital. Range finder option would be nice as well. It would also be nice if they incorporated NV with it but that would make unaffordable for 99% of the hunters out there. There are fusion units already out but they are HMTs instead of handheld.

I guess the good part is the higher resolution cores and sensors that are coming to market will also drive advancement in other areas like FOV, optical zoom and many other areas.
 
Thanks. I've always liked long detection range with wide FOV. I think the Quantum would have been perfect with a little longer detection range.
My technique is to early detect with the scanner then ID with scope.
Will Pulsar still work on these units?
 
img_869.jpg



You can detect and ID with good scanners with low base X no problem....the problem is a high base mag...narrow FOV scanner...is worthless to me.

...I use my Trail XP50 as a handheld.. and@1.6x its AWESOME. Great battery life. Excellent pic.
My AXION 2 XG35 640 is ok @2.5 pic isn't as good as Trail.....

The above is pic from Trail XP50 of a double from last night @ 125 yards......the female(on the right) was already over 60yards out into the field when i saw her-constant 10-2 scanning and 240 yards down wind from the call. The male(base of tree to left) was out in field by the time I got back on Trail to scan.
As you can see , the FOV is "ok" at 140 yards to trees.


Below...These bucks are appx 325 yards....and can see over 500 yards at this spot so there isn't much of an issue if I use a 1.6x or a 2.5x scanner.....

img_677.jpg
 
Darknight said:
Thanks PA. Mick. Do you feel the Axion has less FOV? Do coyotes get recognized by the sensor around 500 yards?
What issues did you have with the hd19a?
Click to expand...
I believe the HD19A is 1X the Axion is 2-8X still fair field of view. I havenā€™t even ranged coyotes at that range. I usually check tree lines and such to check distances but I donā€™t take 500 yard shots in my area.

The HD19A starts to go fuzzy, starts from outside edge & closes in to the center. Just annoying to have to manually nuc it so often but does it better than in auto nuc. Disappointed Sellmark didnā€™t give me better service BUT I still bought the Pulsar equipment as I know they have been solid units overall.
 
Darknight said:
I currently own a FLIR Scion OTM266 as well as an old Pulsar Quantum hd19a.
I hadn't looked through the Pulsar in a while and still prefer its wide field of view.
Is there any thermal monocular on the market today that has a wide field of view like the Pulsar Quantum hd19a?
I've spoken with case-nh on this but welcome all ideas.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

LOL ... I also still got an old Pulsar Quantum hd19a . that thing has great FOV . The thing is OLD, i cant remember how many years I used it, It only has base magnification 1x , with only a 2x . All it's pixels are still 100% GTG in the view screen.
The old Hd19a does suffer in the high humidity conditions, and really is subpar to the newer pulsars models with image quality, but it helped kill a PILE of coyotes over the years.. I even took it out to hunt two nights ago .
-
edit to add :
For a Therm. hand scan, I have Never felt underground going out all night with a low X magnification unit . As soon as scan a dog coming in, the scanner has done it's job, and I move right on the Rifle with the choice of using high-X magnification on the target.


Old POS.jpg

-
 
Last edited:
Mostly in the past I have used thermal scopes popped off the rifle as a handheld scanner. Worked ok, but not optimal. In addition to calling coyotes we stalk pigs a lot in big open fields. I've been wanting a good dedicated scanner to help ID at long range before we start long stalks.

What I ended up with is an AGM Sidewinder 35-640. I've had it a month now and really like it. I have had it out on several hunts both stalking pigs and calling coyotes. 2x base mag on a 640 is perfect for me. It is simple to run, easy controls, uses an 18650 battery. Good battery life. Easy to carry. Moderate price. Good image IMO. Not a lot of frills but easy recording. It does everything I need just perfect.

IDK what FOV is. It seems good to me but like Kino I wish thermal mfg's would just give a simple answer to what it is in their specs where it was easy to compare.
 
So it looks like the Sidewinder 35-640 is 12.5 degrees, which should be about 65ā€™ at 100 yards according to that chart. That is at the 2x base mag. Pretty good I think.

And yes Alf, thank you for that chart!
 
Comparing the scanners in question:

Flir - 172' x 68'
Pulsar - 166' x 125'
My Phenom 640 - 161' x 117'

I've been looking at the iRay Zoom models:

Zoom38
1.5X - 230' x 163'
3X - 100' x 70'

Zoom50
2x - 167' x 118'
4X - 70' x 48'
 
Hmmm. Well going by that my Sidewinder does not have a wide FOV at all, in fact narrow. I guess it just seems like it is wider to me because I am used to running 3X and 3.5X 384 core scopes for shooting. It is wider than both of the scopes I shoot. My XQ-50 is only 7.5 degrees, about 40'.

But, we are open country and the FOV is plenty for what I do. It was really hard to beat at the price I got it for.
 
alf- On the iray zoom zh38, isn't the horizontal fov 22.9 on base magnification and 11.5 degrees when zoomed?

So on base magnification that's about 116 feet? I'm just trying to make sense of this.
 
alf said:
Comparing the scanners in question:

Flir - 172' x 68'
Pulsar - 166' x 125'
My Phenom 640 - 161' x 117'

I've been looking at the iRay Zoom models:

Zoom38
1.5X - 230' x 163'
3X - 100' x 70'

Zoom50
2x - 167' x 118'
4X - 70' x 48'
Click to expand...



Brad Barankas from here had an Iray Zoom 50 and didn't like it, I've heard others not liking them either for various reasons.

I don't have any experience with the pulsar scanners mentioned above but I do have a Pulsar XP50 Pro 2 that's a really really nice scanner.

My thoughts on a scanner is you spend 98% of your night looking through it so don't skimp, I'd way rather have a 640 scanner and shoot 384 if I was on a budget.
 
Darknight said:
alf- On the iray zoom zh38, isn't the horizontal fov 22.9 on base magnification and 11.5 degrees when zoomed?

So on base magnification that's about 116 feet? I'm just trying to make sense of this.
Click to expand...
23 degrees is 230 feet, and at 11.5 degrees is 100 feet.
 
Back
Top