Pulsar Thermion 2 XQ50

C

crazyyote

Active member
Pulsar's outstanding customer service has come through again. They determined my lightly used XQ50 Trail was unrepairable after repeated zero shifts again. I was told they are sending me a Thermion 2 XQ50. Who here has used one? Your thoughts on it's performance please. I hope it's not another product that loses it's zero. I wish their engineering matched their customer service. I'm hoping this line does. Sky Pup.. Kirsch... your intellect please.
 
Last edited:
I haven't used a Thermion personally, so can't offer a ton of advice. I have read lots about them. Most people seem to give a slight edge in the image of the Thermions over Trails with similar specs. The Thermions fit most bolt guns better than the Trails due to their more traditional design and ability to use 30mm rings. The Trail and Trail 2 have better battery life and have an LRF version so those are positives for that series as well. As you have seen first hand, there is a history of some POI issues with the Trails. In general, the Thermion seems to be much improved in regards to POI issues, and the Thermion 2 is supposed to handle humidity better. Try it and if you don't like it, you can always sell it. If you love it, keep it.
 
.... crazyyote ... Just today the Pulsar dealer called me (where I bought the Pulsar Thermion 2 XP50 on June 16 at 4200 € with a gift: the optional spare battery and the Pulsar bottle-gadget ...). He asked me if I find any hunters interested in buying the Thermion 2 XQ50, just arrived in the shop, at 3250 €.

The Thermion 2 XQ50 has:

384x288 pixel
NETD< 40 mK°
17 micron/pixel
lens F50/1.0
FOV 7.5°x5.6°
mag. 3.5-14X50
ID = 865 pixel/square yard.

My Thermion 2 XP50 has:

640x480 pixel
NETD< 25 mK°
17 micron/pixel
lens F50/1.0
FOV 12.4°x9.3°
mag 2-16X50
ID = 865 pixel/square yard.

In practice (I would like to ask at: Kirsch, SkyPup, Skinney....), I gave € 950 to:
1) 196608 pixel (more);
2) NETD
 
Last edited:
Ernest,

When someone tells me they automatically double their base magnification, I would usually tell them don't waste your money on the lower magnification scope. If you use the lower power to scan, then it is good. The lower starting magnification makes it more useable in various terrain from close to far, so overall it tends to be more desirable and they carry a better resale value.

Your Accolade had a very good image, so I would have worried you wouldn't love the XQ image. As already mentioned, if you are always shooting at 4x or more, you are going to see a similar quality image to the XQ, so it really didn't matter. The only other advantage is the NETD value you talked about. This should allow you to hunt in tougher condition such as rain and snow. Most of the time, the higher quality thermals are nice to have but don't lead to more coyotes in the back of your truck as you mentioned. Either thermal should work well for you. I don't want to make you feel sad about your purchase, but with 100% honesty, based on what you have said for your usage, if both were available at the time of your purchase, I probably would have gone with the XQ if you were stretching your money/resources.
 
I've come up with perhaps another solution... I don't like the internal battery, different battery, and having to purchase another 30mm scope mount. Anyone who has used flashlights for a living knows sooner or later the rechargeable ones need to be replaced. How would Pulsar replace the Thermion internal battery? I asked that question and they didn't know. I asked the customer service representative if I could upgrade to a XQ50 Trail 2 LRF instead of the Thermion 2 if I paid the difference. He said he would have to check into that but didn't see why they would not approve it. I have no complaints about my Trail XQ50 other than holding zero. Image was great for Ohio fields. So those of you in the know is the Trail XQ50 2 LRF fixed or is it having zero issues too? If these are having known issues I'll probably sell the Thermion unopened NIB. Thanks again to you technical guru's for taking the time to answer. If any of you don't want to post a negative comment about these products please PM me with concerns in confidence.
 
Last edited:
Thermion 2 XQ50:

384x288 pixel
NETD < 40 mK°
17 micron/pixel
lens F50/1.0
FOV 7.5°x5.6°
mag. 3.5-14X50
ID = 865 pixel/square yard.

Thermion 2 XP50:

640x480 pixel
NETD < 25 mK°
17 micron/pixel
lens F50/1.0
FOV 12.4°x9.3°
mag 2-16X50
ID = 865 pixel/square yard.

Trail 2 lrf XQ50A :

384x284 pixel
NETD < 40 mK°
17 micron/pixel
lens F50/1.2
FOV 7.5°x5.6°
mag 3.5-14X41.7
ID = 865 pixel/square yard

I take the liberty of not advising you to upgrade from the Thermion 2 XQ50 to the Trail 2 lrf XQ50A. I am very afraid that you would take a step back ... Unfortunately in the Trail 2 they only changed the body (which is now in magnesium alloy) and the sensor which went from NETD < 50 mK° to NETD < 40 mK°. They did not change the lens which remained F50/1.2 ... with an effective lens diameter of only 41.7 mm versus 50 mm of the Thermion 2 XQ50 and Thermion 2 XP50 ... A larger diameter than the germanium lens, for the same focal length (50mm), makes a significant difference ... Captures a greater amount of brightness and thermal information. The Pulsar sales representative in Italy expects to release two new versions Trail 2 lrf XQ50 PRO and Trail 2 lrf XP50 PRO ... with F50/1.0 lens ... with 50 mm effective diameter lens. Right now I would advise you to stay on one of these 2 models: Thermion 2 XQ50 or Thermion 2 XP50 ... which will then be easily resold.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Ernest for your technical analysis on these products. You, Kirsch, Skypup and others possess a level of knowledge of this technology that I don't grasp. I am grateful to those of you willing to share your knowledge to make purchasing the perfect product possible within a price point. And of course you have to translate it!! Big thanks.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top