Coyote thermal
- Thread starter Jerdogger
- Start date
I just tried out a ATN ThOR 4 1-5 zoom, $1999, not impressed so far, either a bad unit, a fail to begin with or I need better adjustment. Seems to be washing out a lot. It has great features and there is an upgraded one in your higher price range. Just be sure if you want one of those, get good support.
Last year we used pulsar trails, both 38p and 50p. Great units.
Last year we used pulsar trails, both 38p and 50p. Great units.
Kirsch
Active member
Tom at Night Goggles can provide more information. Not trying to be an ATN snob as I also own the Xsight II, but they are very quirky and I don't trust them. I know of many dealers that carried ATN and due to product and customer service issues, no longer do, so am not including their products below. You can always buy used but buying a high-end piece of electronics subjected to harsh hunting usage without a warranty can be very risky.
The main options in this price range would be:
Pulsar Apex XQ38 ($2500) or Apex XQ50 ($2800)
Pulsar Trail XQ38 ($3300) or XQ50 ($3800)
Flir PTS233 ($2200)
Flir PTS536 ($3800)
There are Armasight and older Flirs, etc but these would be your main choices. The Pulsar Apex scopes are just a great scope. They don't have all the bells and whistles but are a great value. The main features missing by default from the Trail line are rechargeable internal battery pack, video and audio recording, and wifi integration to their smart phone app. If you like more zoom in your scopes the Apex XQ50 or Trail XQ50 are both 2.7x base mag and the Flir PTS536 starts at 4x. I owned a Pulsar Trail XQ38 and am currently using the Flir PTS536.
The main options in this price range would be:
Pulsar Apex XQ38 ($2500) or Apex XQ50 ($2800)
Pulsar Trail XQ38 ($3300) or XQ50 ($3800)
Flir PTS233 ($2200)
Flir PTS536 ($3800)
There are Armasight and older Flirs, etc but these would be your main choices. The Pulsar Apex scopes are just a great scope. They don't have all the bells and whistles but are a great value. The main features missing by default from the Trail line are rechargeable internal battery pack, video and audio recording, and wifi integration to their smart phone app. If you like more zoom in your scopes the Apex XQ50 or Trail XQ50 are both 2.7x base mag and the Flir PTS536 starts at 4x. I owned a Pulsar Trail XQ38 and am currently using the Flir PTS536.
Kevinfarmer3456
New member
Like stated above my vote goes for the Apex XQ 50, Trail XQ 50, or FLIR 536...and honestly for coyotes only i would go FLIR 536
Kirsch
Active member
Originally Posted By: JerdoggerWhich do you prefer. Do you miss the xq38? I miss certain things about the Pulsar Trail XQ38, but overall not really. I got rid of it because Pulsar had a known issue (for sure last year) where certain units would have a wandering POI in cold weather. Things I like more about the Flir are color reticles and palettes, user configurable auto video record (time before and after shot), customized recoil tolerance settings, and higher base magnification.
Overall, I thought the entire image looked better on the XQ38 but the actual animal looks better (has more detail) in the FLIR. I also own a Helion XP38. There were no instances last year when using both that I was able to ID something with the Trail XQ38 that I wasn't able to with the Helion XP38. However, in the limited time I have used the FLIR PTS536 and the Helion XP38, there have been a few times already when I couldn't ID something with the Helion even when zoomed in but I could with the PTS536. This surprised me.
I preferred the buttons of the Pulsar and the focus system. However, the main feature many people would potentially miss is the PIP of the Pulsar. If you like a bigger FOV, and then a zoomed in PIP, a person will prefer the Pulsar. For big groups of hogs, the limited FOV of the Flir PTS536 might be an issue but for open plains coyote hunting like I hunt, I think it will be awesome. Our night season hasn't opened yet in ND so I have taken it on a few day stands just to get used to it. Here is a video of what it looks like.
Overall, I thought the entire image looked better on the XQ38 but the actual animal looks better (has more detail) in the FLIR. I also own a Helion XP38. There were no instances last year when using both that I was able to ID something with the Trail XQ38 that I wasn't able to with the Helion XP38. However, in the limited time I have used the FLIR PTS536 and the Helion XP38, there have been a few times already when I couldn't ID something with the Helion even when zoomed in but I could with the PTS536. This surprised me.
I preferred the buttons of the Pulsar and the focus system. However, the main feature many people would potentially miss is the PIP of the Pulsar. If you like a bigger FOV, and then a zoomed in PIP, a person will prefer the Pulsar. For big groups of hogs, the limited FOV of the Flir PTS536 might be an issue but for open plains coyote hunting like I hunt, I think it will be awesome. Our night season hasn't opened yet in ND so I have taken it on a few day stands just to get used to it. Here is a video of what it looks like.
iowayotehunter76
New member
Originally Posted By: KirschOriginally Posted By: JerdoggerWhich do you prefer. Do you miss the xq38? I miss certain things about the Pulsar Trail XQ38, but overall not really. I got rid of it because Pulsar had a known issue (for sure last year) where certain units would have a wandering POI in cold weather. Things I like more about the Flir are color reticles and palettes, user configurable auto video record (time before and after shot), customized recoil tolerance settings, and higher base magnification.
Overall, I thought the entire image looked better on the XQ38 but the actual animal looks better (has more detail) in the FLIR. I also own a Helion XP38. There were no instances last year when using both that I was able to ID something with the Trail XQ38 that I wasn't able to with the Helion XP38. However, in the limited time I have used the FLIR PTS536 and the Helion XP38, there have been a few times already when I couldn't ID something with the Helion even when zoomed in but I could with the PTS536. This surprised me.
I preferred the buttons of the Pulsar and the focus system. However, the main feature many people would potentially miss is the PIP of the Pulsar. If you like a bigger FOV, and then a zoomed in PIP, a person will prefer the Pulsar. For big groups of hogs, the limited FOV of the Flir PTS536 might be an issue but for open plains coyote hunting like I hunt, I think it will be awesome. Our night season hasn't opened yet in ND so I have taken it on a few day stands just to get used to it. Here is a video of what it looks like.
You can ID (have a better image) at greater distance with the Flir 536 because the base magnification is higher and the objective lens is bigger. My helion xp38 can't Id as far as my buddies trail xp50. They are close however.
Overall, I thought the entire image looked better on the XQ38 but the actual animal looks better (has more detail) in the FLIR. I also own a Helion XP38. There were no instances last year when using both that I was able to ID something with the Trail XQ38 that I wasn't able to with the Helion XP38. However, in the limited time I have used the FLIR PTS536 and the Helion XP38, there have been a few times already when I couldn't ID something with the Helion even when zoomed in but I could with the PTS536. This surprised me.
I preferred the buttons of the Pulsar and the focus system. However, the main feature many people would potentially miss is the PIP of the Pulsar. If you like a bigger FOV, and then a zoomed in PIP, a person will prefer the Pulsar. For big groups of hogs, the limited FOV of the Flir PTS536 might be an issue but for open plains coyote hunting like I hunt, I think it will be awesome. Our night season hasn't opened yet in ND so I have taken it on a few day stands just to get used to it. Here is a video of what it looks like.
You can ID (have a better image) at greater distance with the Flir 536 because the base magnification is higher and the objective lens is bigger. My helion xp38 can't Id as far as my buddies trail xp50. They are close however.
iowayotehunter76
New member
Jerdogger, I see you are from Maine. IF you are not hunting areas where you can see a good distance, I would not recommend the XQ50 models or the flir 536. FOV is too small in my opinion. I have an apex XQ38 it will allow you to I'd and shoot out to at least 200 yards. If you need more than that then the other models will be good but they will make tight areas more difficult. If you have the coin, the XP50 is a great happy medium between FOV and making those longer shots.
Kirsch
Active member
Originally Posted By: iowayotehunter76You can ID (have a better image) at greater distance with the Flir 536 because the base magnification is higher and the objective lens is bigger. My helion xp38 can't Id as far as my buddies trail xp50. They are close however.
I agree it is a combination of base mag and objective but it could be 12 micron vs 17 micron as well. If you asked most people if a 320 core scope should be able to ID better than a similarly priced 640 core scanner, they would say no. The question was how do I compare the two. This is simply one thing I have noticed using both the FLIR PTS536 and the Pulsar XQ38. You do sacrifice FOV with the PTS536 especially in comparison to the Pulsars. It might cost me a few coyotes, especially on multiples, but it will hopefully gain me a few coyotes on fewer misses as well.
I agree it is a combination of base mag and objective but it could be 12 micron vs 17 micron as well. If you asked most people if a 320 core scope should be able to ID better than a similarly priced 640 core scanner, they would say no. The question was how do I compare the two. This is simply one thing I have noticed using both the FLIR PTS536 and the Pulsar XQ38. You do sacrifice FOV with the PTS536 especially in comparison to the Pulsars. It might cost me a few coyotes, especially on multiples, but it will hopefully gain me a few coyotes on fewer misses as well.
Thanks guys. My Most productive spots are large dariy farms with large fields. But being my first and only thermal try to have my cake and eat it to on a old Milwaukee beer Budget.
Also I do like the option of having the ability to use a battery pack and cr123s If there was ever a catastrophe wouldn't need power to recharge battery packs to use the unit.
Guess that leaves the pulsar apex line or flir
Also I do like the option of having the ability to use a battery pack and cr123s If there was ever a catastrophe wouldn't need power to recharge battery packs to use the unit.
Guess that leaves the pulsar apex line or flir
Kirsch
Active member
Originally Posted By: JerdoggerAlso I do like the option of having the ability to use a battery pack and cr123s If there was ever a catastrophe wouldn't need power to recharge battery packs to use the unit.
Guess that leaves the pulsar apex line or flir I'm the exact opposite. Anything I can do to not have to mess with CR123 or any type of battery for a whole night is what I am looking for. Maine can get really cold during the winter months (just like ND) and I don't want to be swapping batteries every few stands. Some people love the CR123's, but if I can run something off a pack, I do. It might be slightly heavier but is worth it. You can have an extra backup battery if this is a concern.
Guess that leaves the pulsar apex line or flir I'm the exact opposite. Anything I can do to not have to mess with CR123 or any type of battery for a whole night is what I am looking for. Maine can get really cold during the winter months (just like ND) and I don't want to be swapping batteries every few stands. Some people love the CR123's, but if I can run something off a pack, I do. It might be slightly heavier but is worth it. You can have an extra backup battery if this is a concern.
I have a Helion XQ38, Trail XP50, & a Flir PTS536 so I've been able to compare a few and for the price range your in the Flir PTS536 gets my vote. The background image seems to be clearer on the Pulsars but the Target image on the Flir is better and more detailed IMO. I also wasn't a fan of having to replace CR123 batteries on the Flir so I added a battery pack from TNVC and problem solved. I also like the ruggedness of the FLir over the Trail.