I’ve been so indecisive on which thermal scope to go with and just when I think I’ve decided, something else pops up. I had previously looked at the Flir Thermosight Pro scopes, but they hadn’t been released other than the pts233. So I was looking at the Pulsar Trail thermals, the XP50 and XQ50. I was given some better information from Wig and I was going to go with the XQ50. But I stumbled across the Flir Thermosight Pro scopes, the PTS536 and PTS736 and now I’m indecisive again! The 536 has 4x optical magnification and the 736 has 6x, where the Pulsar is 2.7x optical, I think with 380 resolution and 50hz refresh rate. Both the Flir Thermosight Pros have 320 resolution and 60hz refresh rate. The 536 is priced similar to the Pulsar XQ50 and the 736 is a good bit more. I think the 536 has just been released not too long ago but the 736 has been out for a while. Has anyone had any experience with both the Pulsar Trail XQ50 and the Flir Thermosight Pro 736 or 536, and if so what do you think? It seems that both the PTS536 and 736 are going to give me a longer range than the Pulsar Trail. Someone please help me decide! I’m just hesitant to drop almost 4K $ without any experience from the two.
Night Vision Pulsar XQ50 vs Flir Thermosight Pro PTS536
- Thread starter Willie Miller V
- Start date
I can only tell you about the 736.
I had the 233 and 736.
The 736 worked excellent for me to 500 yards. Only bitch was the objective lense has to be focused for every 30-40 yards for super sharp id and going from 300-500 or so was time consuming and harder to do unless I could rest the rifle on something while looking at my target.
Picture wise, the 736 was as good as my Reap-ir.
536 wasn't out then. I thought then, between the 233 and 736, the 536 was going to be the ticket. I haven't been able to do hands on with one yet. Am looking forward to it.
Maybe this little bit of info will help.
I had the 233 and 736.
The 736 worked excellent for me to 500 yards. Only bitch was the objective lense has to be focused for every 30-40 yards for super sharp id and going from 300-500 or so was time consuming and harder to do unless I could rest the rifle on something while looking at my target.
Picture wise, the 736 was as good as my Reap-ir.
536 wasn't out then. I thought then, between the 233 and 736, the 536 was going to be the ticket. I haven't been able to do hands on with one yet. Am looking forward to it.
Maybe this little bit of info will help.
Yes that does help me get a good bit closer. I’m leaning heavily towards the 536. One reason is $1000. That’s a good bit of difference. The only differences between the two is the 536 is 4x vs the 736 @6x, 4-16x 50 for the 536 and 6-24x75 for 736. If I was taking mostly 300 yard+ shots I would go with the 736. I just don’t think that the Pulsar can do 200 yards plus as well as both the Flirs.
My current concern with the FLIRs doesn't have to do with the widgits, it has to do with the company. FLIR bought Armasight and made some statements about what was going to happen 18+ months ago and that has not happened. And Armasight has essentially been destroyed and the customer base, is pretty upset. I got lucky and guessed this might happen and sold all my Armsight thermals in early 2017.
Stories of ignoring customer calls and emails have increased since the final firing of all the former Armasight staff. And that is a shame, because at least within the civilian thermal world, Armasight customer service was pretty danged good. Not perfect, but generally helpful, generally fast and you could get them on the phone.
The two real 320 rifle scopes have now finally been released over a year beyond when they were stated to be delivered to the market. The 640s are no where in sight. What are FLIRs intentions with the Armasight customers? If actions speak louder than words, the abandonment the customers feel answers the question.
So my concern would be customer service and I plan on waiting at least another six months to see if FLIR can finally get their act together.
==
Now a technical question.
If you will be taking mostly 300 yard + plus shots exactly how will you aim ??
Stories of ignoring customer calls and emails have increased since the final firing of all the former Armasight staff. And that is a shame, because at least within the civilian thermal world, Armasight customer service was pretty danged good. Not perfect, but generally helpful, generally fast and you could get them on the phone.
The two real 320 rifle scopes have now finally been released over a year beyond when they were stated to be delivered to the market. The 640s are no where in sight. What are FLIRs intentions with the Armasight customers? If actions speak louder than words, the abandonment the customers feel answers the question.
So my concern would be customer service and I plan on waiting at least another six months to see if FLIR can finally get their act together.
==
Now a technical question.
If you will be taking mostly 300 yard + plus shots exactly how will you aim ??
After a lot of tire kicking, I decided to go with the Flir 536.
I looked through a 233 and it was a decent scope, but i wanted 4x magnification, 50mm lens and the ability to focus, so I waited for the 536 to come onto the scene.
I'm still dropping critters with my 1986 AN/PAS19 and 1997 Elcan Specter IR scopes, but it's time I get an optic from this century.
The only thing lacking on the 536, or any of the flir scopes, is an OBJ lens cover.
That's my next purchase, once I can get a measurement of the lens OD.
I looked through a 233 and it was a decent scope, but i wanted 4x magnification, 50mm lens and the ability to focus, so I waited for the 536 to come onto the scene.
I'm still dropping critters with my 1986 AN/PAS19 and 1997 Elcan Specter IR scopes, but it's time I get an optic from this century.
The only thing lacking on the 536, or any of the flir scopes, is an OBJ lens cover.
That's my next purchase, once I can get a measurement of the lens OD.
I totally understand and agree with your thoughts and comments about Flir and their customer service. I’ve got a CO-X HD+ in front of a NF ATACR 2-16x42 that does pretty good when the situation is right. I’m still new to operating the NV clip on because I have only used it a few times. As far as your question of taking shots over 300, that all depends on what I put the thermal on. More than likely I’ll put it on a suppressed 6mm Creedmoor that I had made but I doubt I will take many shots over 300. I would hope to get them much closer. As far as reticles go, Pulsar has the mil-dot for hold over, I don’t know what all reticles Flir has. That’s another thing that I’m going to look at before I decide. I would hope that Flir gets their stuff together and be a stand up company when it comes to service, I’m not going to be using it more than a few times a month until the fall.
Good deal, just wanted to make sure you were thinking on this ... a flat flying fast cartridge can extend out the ability to "use the critter as a reticle" ... pulsar does have some holding reticles as you say. Many thermals have hunting reticles only.
Here is link to prior post containing video review of the 736 and IIRC, there is comparision to Trail in there as well.
https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/practicing-with-night-vision.231054/page-5#post-6981574
Last edited:
After some more thought and tire kicking on the matter about what I really needed in a new thermal, I decided to go with the Pulsar trail XQ50.
I had the 536 on back order.
Had nothing to do with FLIR's customer service or Price either ( $4 dollar difference between the scopes for me) .
The XQ50 was the scope that had less of what I don't need and the factory 8 hr rechargeable battery was the nail in the coffin.
They also offer a 16 hr battery, but I'm buying an extra 8 hr as a backup.
I don't want to have to deal with the external battery and cables to get longer running times with the 536.
While the 536 hasn't been fully tested yet, the XQ50 has been around and the known issues with them have been primarily taken care of already.
I had the 536 on back order.
Had nothing to do with FLIR's customer service or Price either ( $4 dollar difference between the scopes for me) .
The XQ50 was the scope that had less of what I don't need and the factory 8 hr rechargeable battery was the nail in the coffin.
They also offer a 16 hr battery, but I'm buying an extra 8 hr as a backup.
I don't want to have to deal with the external battery and cables to get longer running times with the 536.
While the 536 hasn't been fully tested yet, the XQ50 has been around and the known issues with them have been primarily taken care of already.
Similar threads
