Flir PTS Scope Comparison
- Thread starter Kirsch
- Start date
family guy
New member
What was the distance?
Kirsch
Active member
Originally Posted By: wc224v Id like to see a comparison between the PTS 536 vs. the PTS 736 I don't own a PTS736. The 6x would be pretty extreme even for wide open plains hunting. I shot coyotes from 30 yards to 400 yards with the PTS536 on base mag. I could always increase the magnification of the scope if I needed to go even further but never did, so for me the PTS736 really isn't necessary. At 4x base, it can be a bit of a struggle to find hard charging coyotes or get on multiples. Too much base isn't a good thing either. For coyotes, could a person use a PTS736, absolutely, but honestly the PTS536 is more than enough base mag even for open plains hunting. I like it a lot but if they had a 3x, it would probably work for more environments. I would lean towards a little less versus a little more unless a person is having to take shots past 300 as the standard range. However, I would have a hard time going back to a 1 or 2x thermal scope after using the 4x all season.
Were both these coyote taken on the base magnification? You seem to like the black hot to hunt with. Any reason why? I liked this for awhile but the white hot seemed to make me shoot for a smaller area on the coyote as the black hot made it look solid black. Not really the case with this video. What was the back round on these shots. Snow covered? Nothing stands out very much. I have the Trail XP50 for reference.
Last edited:
Kirsch
Active member
Originally Posted By: case-nhWere both these coyote taken on the base magnification? Yes, both scopes were on their base magnification. This is why it is a good comparison and why at the end I showed what both views looked like at the same time. These were the same two coyotes and the hunters were sitting within a few feet of each other. The PTS233 has a 1.5x base magnification and the PTS536 has a 4x base.
Originally Posted By: case-nhYou seem to like the black hot to hunt with. Any reason why? I liked this for awhile but the white hot seemed to make me shoot for a smaller area on the coyote as the black hot made it look solid black. Not really the case with this video. I started with black hot when using Pulsar scopes. A black reticle on white hot would often get lost in the background and the white reticle would be hard to see on the hot object when using white hot. However, when using black hot, the white reticle was a different shade than the white background and was still visible on the background and the coyote. Also, black hot tends to show obstructions and terrain better in my opinion. Now, I shoot a Flir which has colored backgrounds and colored reticles. Since I like black hot, I haven't found another color palette that I like better but moved to a red color for the reticle to make the reticle stand out even better. The dot is hard to see on the videos but is very bright when looking in the scope. I tried a target dot this year, and it helped me focus my shot better as you state below vs shooting at the broader image of the coyote.
You stated the coyotes in your Pulsar looked solid black. This doesn't apply to all scopes but I know with my Pulsar Trail XQ38, when the coyote started to show shading, this was like using a range finder. My Pulsar would start to differentiate the heat from the coyote at around 250 yards and in. At this point, I knew the coyote was in range. If the coyote is all black in your scope, either the settings should be changed (contrast and brightness) or the coyote may be further than the hunter thinks it is. On my Flir with a higher base magnification, and a 12 micron core, the coyotes start to show different heat (IR) readings at around 350 yards. On the PTS 233, it is about at 200 yards when you start to see the heat differences, so it can and does vary per scope but is a good thing to notice.
Originally Posted By: case-nhWhat was the back round on these shots. Snow covered? Nothing stands out very much. I have the Trail XP50 for reference. Yes, this was a snow covered pasture and they are standing on the edge of a very large hill. Also, one difference on the Flir scopes, good or bad, the animal detail tends to look better than the background image. The background image looks a little smeary in comparison. This was kind of odd to me when I first moved from Pulsar to Flir, However, I am shooting at the coyote and not the background and am using the scope only for positive ID and making the shot. I use my Pulsar Helion as my scanner to find my calling locations and scan while on the stand. When watching the video at around 1 minute mark, the video is showing what the same area looked like with the Pulsar Helion XP38. You will notice, it doesn't show a lot of detail with the Pulsar 640 core either as it was all snow covered.
You also are using a Trail XP with a 640 core, so comparing a $5K scope to a $3.8K (PTS536) and a $2.2K (PTS233) scope. However, if you zoomed a Pulsar Trail or Helion XP or XQ to the same FOV and same zoom, I doubt the image (animal or background) would look better. I've done this with my Helion XP38 many times and the Flir 536 (not the 233) will typically look better at the higher mag. This is why I tell people all the time, Base Magnification and FOV should be a big factor in purchasing a scope and/or monocular.
Originally Posted By: case-nhYou seem to like the black hot to hunt with. Any reason why? I liked this for awhile but the white hot seemed to make me shoot for a smaller area on the coyote as the black hot made it look solid black. Not really the case with this video. I started with black hot when using Pulsar scopes. A black reticle on white hot would often get lost in the background and the white reticle would be hard to see on the hot object when using white hot. However, when using black hot, the white reticle was a different shade than the white background and was still visible on the background and the coyote. Also, black hot tends to show obstructions and terrain better in my opinion. Now, I shoot a Flir which has colored backgrounds and colored reticles. Since I like black hot, I haven't found another color palette that I like better but moved to a red color for the reticle to make the reticle stand out even better. The dot is hard to see on the videos but is very bright when looking in the scope. I tried a target dot this year, and it helped me focus my shot better as you state below vs shooting at the broader image of the coyote.
You stated the coyotes in your Pulsar looked solid black. This doesn't apply to all scopes but I know with my Pulsar Trail XQ38, when the coyote started to show shading, this was like using a range finder. My Pulsar would start to differentiate the heat from the coyote at around 250 yards and in. At this point, I knew the coyote was in range. If the coyote is all black in your scope, either the settings should be changed (contrast and brightness) or the coyote may be further than the hunter thinks it is. On my Flir with a higher base magnification, and a 12 micron core, the coyotes start to show different heat (IR) readings at around 350 yards. On the PTS 233, it is about at 200 yards when you start to see the heat differences, so it can and does vary per scope but is a good thing to notice.
Originally Posted By: case-nhWhat was the back round on these shots. Snow covered? Nothing stands out very much. I have the Trail XP50 for reference. Yes, this was a snow covered pasture and they are standing on the edge of a very large hill. Also, one difference on the Flir scopes, good or bad, the animal detail tends to look better than the background image. The background image looks a little smeary in comparison. This was kind of odd to me when I first moved from Pulsar to Flir, However, I am shooting at the coyote and not the background and am using the scope only for positive ID and making the shot. I use my Pulsar Helion as my scanner to find my calling locations and scan while on the stand. When watching the video at around 1 minute mark, the video is showing what the same area looked like with the Pulsar Helion XP38. You will notice, it doesn't show a lot of detail with the Pulsar 640 core either as it was all snow covered.
You also are using a Trail XP with a 640 core, so comparing a $5K scope to a $3.8K (PTS536) and a $2.2K (PTS233) scope. However, if you zoomed a Pulsar Trail or Helion XP or XQ to the same FOV and same zoom, I doubt the image (animal or background) would look better. I've done this with my Helion XP38 many times and the Flir 536 (not the 233) will typically look better at the higher mag. This is why I tell people all the time, Base Magnification and FOV should be a big factor in purchasing a scope and/or monocular.
Thanks, will check some of this out. Been awhile since I've used the black hot so going on memory and might have to try it again. Just got comfortable using the white hot over time and will pay attention to the shading and possible range correlation. I know I see different shading on white hot. Had been using the X52 black/white reticle but have recently switched to the M56i black/white to experiment with it with it's hold over mil dots if need on long shots. A red dot would be nice on the Pulsars on a lot of there reticles. There differences aren't all that dramatic at the center IMO.
Kirsch
Active member
Originally Posted By: case-nhA red dot would be nice on the Pulsars on a lot of there reticles. There differences aren't all that dramatic at the center IMO. I agree. This will be one of the differences in the Pulsar Thermion line as they will have colored reticles and backgrounds. Many really like the Sepia background as well. I personally have never used it much but some say it is easier on their eyes.
Another question: would you say the video on YouTube looks better or worse than the view through the scope. I would guess worse. If so guesstimate on percentage less than the view through the scope. Also, I should reread my posts. Used there 2x in the previous post when should have been their. Da. LOL. Also, nice sim-shot on the 2 coyotes. Not that easy to do.
Last edited:
Kirsch
Active member
Originally Posted By: case-nhAnother question: would you say the video on YouTube looks better or worse than the view through the scope. I would guess worse. If so guesstimate on percentage less than the view through the scope.nice sim-shot on the 2 coyotes. Not that easy to do. Most videos are not as good as it looks through the scope. This applies to Trijicon and Pulsar for sure. If I look at the original videos on my computer from both the Flir PTS233 and PTS536, I would say it is close. The coyote definitely seems closer or bigger in the scope, but the detail is pretty similar. Until it gets reformatted and put on YouTube/Facebook, etc it doesn't look as good. I would guess probably 20% less. However, there have been times where I thought the recorded image was as good or even better. At this point, I credit this to the fact, the dioptic adjustment probably wasn't optimal.
I haven't experienced this personally, but I have heard the ATN thermal videos are actually better than what it looks like through the eyepiece. Again, this is just what people in forums tend to say.
Thank you on the simultaneous shot. We count it down. The video actually has 2 gun shots and there were 2 shots but in reality one is way louder. My hunting partner doesn't shoot suppressed. So, we have learned that I should count it down because if he does, he gets the shot off slightly before me and his gun is so loud, it is almost impossible not to jump. We didn't get a chance to hunt together a lot but pulled off the simultaneous double-tap around 4 times, and got better as we hunted more. I posted another double a week or so ago. Here is the Link in case you missed it.
I haven't experienced this personally, but I have heard the ATN thermal videos are actually better than what it looks like through the eyepiece. Again, this is just what people in forums tend to say.
Thank you on the simultaneous shot. We count it down. The video actually has 2 gun shots and there were 2 shots but in reality one is way louder. My hunting partner doesn't shoot suppressed. So, we have learned that I should count it down because if he does, he gets the shot off slightly before me and his gun is so loud, it is almost impossible not to jump. We didn't get a chance to hunt together a lot but pulled off the simultaneous double-tap around 4 times, and got better as we hunted more. I posted another double a week or so ago. Here is the Link in case you missed it.
Has anyone had experience with both the PTS233 and the trail xq30. I have an xq30, which is going back for poi shift and I’m wondering if I should go with the PTS233 if I can get my money back for the trail. The videos I’ve been seeing of PTS233 have got me intrigued. I scan with it on the gun so please let me know how it compares with field of view, detection range, image detail, and overall performance. I realize the extra bells and whistles on the trail but I can’t stand the poi shift. If no one has had experience with both, I think I’m gonna call night goggles to see if they can give me some input. Thanks
Kirsch
Active member
Originally Posted By: ToroHas anyone had experience with both the PTS233 and the trail xq30. I have an xq30, which is going back for poi shift and I’m wondering if I should go with the PTS233 if I can get my money back for the trail. The videos I’ve been seeing of PTS233 have got me intrigued. I scan with it on the gun so please let me know how it compares with field of view, detection range, image detail, and overall performance. I realize the extra bells and whistles on the trail but I can’t stand the poi shift. If no one has had experience with both, I think I’m gonna call night goggles to see if they can give me some input. Thanks I haven't used a Trail XQ30. I have used a Trail XQ38. The image on the XQ38 was better than the PTS233 but it has a much larger objective so it isn't a fair comparison. FOV is virtually identical on the XQ30 and the PTS233 within a few decimal points of difference. The Detection range indicates a few yards more for the Pulsar. The extra bells and whistles on the Pulsar are PIP, StreamVision, integrated battery, audio recording, and very good customer service. The extra bells and whistles on the Flir are color reticles, colored backgrounds, user configurable auto recording, much faster NUC process, and a much better factory mount. Both have fixed focus, so there is no difference there. The Pulsar is $500 more.
I can tell you from the little bit I saw the PTS233 used beside my PTS536, as long as the humidity was low, and the coyote was inside of 200 yards, the scope worked fine. As soon as humidity started creeping up into the 90% range and/or if the coyotes were outside of 200, it is really hard to ID them with the PTS233. It is good for what it is and that is an entry level thermal. The one thing I have heard from multiple people is the PTS233 is difficult to get sighted in. My PTS536 is a breeze but the 233 seems to move so much with each adjustment and due to the small objective and low mag, it is a challenge. Tom at Night Goggles can give you more advice. I can tell you the Flirs do seem to hold their POI. Once we had both of our Flirs sighted in, they stayed true all season.
I can tell you from the little bit I saw the PTS233 used beside my PTS536, as long as the humidity was low, and the coyote was inside of 200 yards, the scope worked fine. As soon as humidity started creeping up into the 90% range and/or if the coyotes were outside of 200, it is really hard to ID them with the PTS233. It is good for what it is and that is an entry level thermal. The one thing I have heard from multiple people is the PTS233 is difficult to get sighted in. My PTS536 is a breeze but the 233 seems to move so much with each adjustment and due to the small objective and low mag, it is a challenge. Tom at Night Goggles can give you more advice. I can tell you the Flirs do seem to hold their POI. Once we had both of our Flirs sighted in, they stayed true all season.
6mm06
Well-known member
Originally Posted By: KirschI haven't experienced this personally, but I have heard the ATN thermal videos are actually better than what it looks like through the eyepiece.
I can't say about ATN thermal scopes, but my relatively new X-Sight 4k does give a better video (slightly) than what my eye sees, basically with contrast. With my old X-Sight 2 it was the opposite, my eye saw better than the video. My Pulsar Apex XQ38 thermal sees better through the eyepiece than the video indicates, and my Sightmark Photon XT gives better video than what I see.
Just saying this to demonstrate that sometimes, maybe most of the time, there is a difference between what the eye sees and the video, and depending on the scope or brand it can go one way or the other.
Yeah, I could hear both shots but close enough to get them both. Only had an opportunity to try it once with my son and I counted to slow and then I jumped on the trigger. I think practice, even some dry fire practice especially would really help. I think no matter what, it makes trigger control more difficult with both shooters. Not so bad when the target is close and larger but the shot with the PTS 233 had to be clean at that range with the lower magnification. Good job.