Comparing trijicon ird mkII 640-20 to a pulsar xp50
- Thread starter smokem
- Start date
Cowboy43
New member
Not that much difference in cost. I think the xp50 can be had for about $4500 and the mk2-20 is about $5300.
The picture is very different in the units and it's hard to describe in words it's so much easier to explain it by looking through a unit. I'll just give you my opinion on it. To me the Pulsar unit seems to pick up heat signatures better at distances but the IR tends to give you better detail on that image. If you'll watch some videos of both units especially on videos where people have filmed through the eyepiece rather than through a mini DVR or the onboard recording for the pulsar. For some reason the mini DVR and the onboard recording don't do the units Justice. I have heard it say that the view through the units eyepiece is about 30% better than it is through the recording. But I have a tendency to say that the view through the eyepiece is actually about 40 to 50% better then through a recorder.
In my opinion the Trijicon does a fantastic job of showing detail of the landscape.
I don't think Pulsar shows detail on the landscape as well as the Trijicon but I believe it picks up the heat signatures better. They are both two completely different cores and honestly they both do thermal differently. Again I can't stress enough that it's very difficult to explain the differences in them in the view in words. It would really be best if you could get your hands on the units and look through them first to see which one you like the best. For me personally I prefer the Pulsar view over any other thermal I have looked through. But that is just me the next guy down may prefer a Flir unit over a Trijicon or pulsar.
Sometimes it just comes down to personal preference. For instance I have always absolutely fell in love with Burris signature scopes. I've got friends that have looked through them and they don't think they're anything special but to my eyes they look fantastic. And for my eyes I have not found a scope yet that has been able to outperform The Burris signature line. I'm not saying The Burris signature Scopes are the absolute best for everyone but they are the best for me.
Different Strokes for different folks.
The picture is very different in the units and it's hard to describe in words it's so much easier to explain it by looking through a unit. I'll just give you my opinion on it. To me the Pulsar unit seems to pick up heat signatures better at distances but the IR tends to give you better detail on that image. If you'll watch some videos of both units especially on videos where people have filmed through the eyepiece rather than through a mini DVR or the onboard recording for the pulsar. For some reason the mini DVR and the onboard recording don't do the units Justice. I have heard it say that the view through the units eyepiece is about 30% better than it is through the recording. But I have a tendency to say that the view through the eyepiece is actually about 40 to 50% better then through a recorder.
In my opinion the Trijicon does a fantastic job of showing detail of the landscape.
I don't think Pulsar shows detail on the landscape as well as the Trijicon but I believe it picks up the heat signatures better. They are both two completely different cores and honestly they both do thermal differently. Again I can't stress enough that it's very difficult to explain the differences in them in the view in words. It would really be best if you could get your hands on the units and look through them first to see which one you like the best. For me personally I prefer the Pulsar view over any other thermal I have looked through. But that is just me the next guy down may prefer a Flir unit over a Trijicon or pulsar.
Sometimes it just comes down to personal preference. For instance I have always absolutely fell in love with Burris signature scopes. I've got friends that have looked through them and they don't think they're anything special but to my eyes they look fantastic. And for my eyes I have not found a scope yet that has been able to outperform The Burris signature line. I'm not saying The Burris signature Scopes are the absolute best for everyone but they are the best for me.
Different Strokes for different folks.
Last edited:
There are people much more technically adept than I on this forum. Ive just been lucky enough to try a few. Trijicon 35mm are fabulous. But it could just be me but I think they are slightly more degraded by humidity than the pulsars. I wish I had the opportunity to try the Trijicon 60mm.
Here is a good deal for anyone in the market for a thermal on the cheap. Pulsar Apex xq38. Only 384x288 resolution and no bells and whistles but for the price of $2300 thru optics planet it is an amazing piece of kit. Apex line has been discontinued but they are still out there. I just took possession of one for an old farmer buddy of mine that doesn't have the digital knack and in exchange for all these years of letting me shoot his coyotes I'm getting him set up and he is going to be pleased. The Apex xq38 is 75% as good as the xp50 and half the price. I wish the first Flir scanner I bought 5 years ago was half as good as the xq38.The price was about the same. They have made surprising advances in 5 years
Here is a good deal for anyone in the market for a thermal on the cheap. Pulsar Apex xq38. Only 384x288 resolution and no bells and whistles but for the price of $2300 thru optics planet it is an amazing piece of kit. Apex line has been discontinued but they are still out there. I just took possession of one for an old farmer buddy of mine that doesn't have the digital knack and in exchange for all these years of letting me shoot his coyotes I'm getting him set up and he is going to be pleased. The Apex xq38 is 75% as good as the xp50 and half the price. I wish the first Flir scanner I bought 5 years ago was half as good as the xq38.The price was about the same. They have made surprising advances in 5 years
Uncle Jimbo
New member
Originally Posted By: igor But it could just be me but I think they are slightly more degraded by humidity than the pulsars. I wish I had the opportunity to try the Trijicon 60mm.
I have the mk3 60mm and the Helion XP50. I agree with your observation. There are times in high humidity when the Pulsar XP50 outperforms the Trijicon. It’s not a regular occurrence but I have seen it. Most often the image in the Trijicon is far superior to that of the Pulsar.
I have the mk3 60mm and the Helion XP50. I agree with your observation. There are times in high humidity when the Pulsar XP50 outperforms the Trijicon. It’s not a regular occurrence but I have seen it. Most often the image in the Trijicon is far superior to that of the Pulsar.