Thermal scope

C

ctcoyote

New member
Hi There,
I know guys you been talking about that a lot and believe my i have been doing some research but still want to ask you.
I do own a Armasight Zeus 336 3x12x42 30 hz thermal scopes have it for few years shoot a lot of coyotes with it, never had a problem, but like to upgrade for something better.
I have been looking at the ATN Thor 4 640 2.5x25,and like the idea or recording and other features what my scope doesn't have,I have seen some videos good and bad, but want to ask someone up there who own one how it is.
I am open to other scopes as well.Dont want to go crazy, my budget will be up to 5K
I mostly hunt open fields, shot rangers from 20-300yards.
Thank you for any info
 
Ive owned 2 ATNs, the original Flir core which was a fantastic unit and an ATN Thor HD. Since the original Flir core, they have changed to a no name core that isnt worth the time wasted to type the name of it. Personally I would stay way away from ATN at the moment. Go Flir pts series or Pulsar Trail.
 
Last edited:
All brands have issues, even the highest end such as Trijicon. However, many dealers have stats on return rates as well as customer service and ATN doesn't rank well. When most of the thermal dealers don't carry ATN and mainly it is big box stores selling them, it should tell you something. A person may get lucky and get a reliable ATN. Eventually, if used enough, almost all thermals will need some type of service/maintenance. Does anyone really want to roll the dice on a 2.5K - 10K purchase on a thermal company with a record of poor service? On top of this, I would highly recommend buying from a reputable dealer and I don't know of any carrying ATN any longer.

The Flir PTS536 would be a step up as you are getting a 12 micron core and recording, but keeping all the same features you may already like in a similar form factor. On the Pulsar side, I would either recommend the Trail XQ50 or the XP50.
 
ATN excells in only one thing. Marketing. Unfortunately, that's the only thing they're good at. Their scopes are sub par and their customer service is even worse.
 
Thank You Guys,
Thats what i mean and like your opinion,Haven't Thot about Flir i will check it outs look at the pulsar XQ and XP they look pretty good, any of you own one of those?
Do you think that from mine Armasight Zeus the picture will be better or detection?
The problem is i never look true any other thermal, all my friends own the same what i have so can't compare.
 
The picture will be better as long as your comparing fairly. You cant compare a native 1.2x magnification to your current 3x and expect to be able to see much better.
 
I own a Trijicon, but my hunting partner has an XQ50. It's not as good as Trijicon, but, in my opinion, Trijicon isn't four times better. The only real advantage I have is 4.5 native magnification versus 2.8 native. Pulsar makes a good thermal.
 
Originally Posted By: ctcoyoteThank You Guys,
Thats what i mean and like your opinion,Haven't Thot about Flir The Flir PTS series even looks exactly like the Armasight Zeus models from an external standpoint but has the new Boson core and some new features like recording.

I would also suggest talking to Tom from Night Goggles, as he is a fantastic thermal dealer who has used them all. Tom Austin (Night Goggles) 909-312-5424 X531
 
Thank you,
I will give him a call, yes i did look at the Flir and you are right, it looks like a Zues from outside.
What is really a main different between Pulsar XP and XQ,
Is 50 much better then 38 talking pulsar?
 
Originally Posted By: ctcoyoteThank you,
What is really a main different between Pulsar XP and XQ,
Is 50 much better then 38 talking pulsar? The only difference in XP vs XQ is a 640 core vs a 384 core. the 50 vs 38 comes down to the size of the objective and the base magnification.

Trail XP50: $4999: 1.6x - 12 (640 core)
Trail XP38: $4449: 1.2x - 9.6 (640 core)
Trail XQ50: $3799: 2.7x - 10.8 (384 core)
Trail XQ38: $3299: 2.1 - 8.4 (384 core)
Trail XQ30: $2799: 1.6x - 4 (384 core)

A lot depends on the distances you hunt and what a person hunts. For hogs, a lot of hunters like more base mag on their scanners because they want to ID the hogs before walking a long ways, and then on their scope have a wide FOV for large sounders of hogs where they need to acquire multiple targets in a hurry. For coyotes at least in the open plains of ND, I like the opposite. I like a wide FOV, and low base base mag on scanner, and then higher base mag on my scope allowing me more range for my shot.

To answer your question, I like the 38 for a scanner and the 50 series for the scope on the Pulsar line, but those are just my preferences for hunting wide open plains of ND.
 

Ctcoyote, hunting open fields out to 300 yards can be totally different hunting than those at 20 yards. If you hunt small parcels of land and thick country, a lower magnification will probably serve you better. I hunt such acreage and find that even my Apex XQ38 with base 2.2x has a pretty narrow field of view, especially if trying to scan with it too. Things happen fast and furious at times, and when hunting close quarters, too much magnification can be a definite handicap.

Close quarter hunting can also pose a challange for a guy that hunts alone and uses a scanner and then has to drop it and get the rifle into action, not to mention getting video recording started if that is something you desire. Hunting the wide open spaces can be a little more forgiving in that regard, but close quarter stuff happens quickly and is generally over in a matter of seconds as I'm sure you know. I can see how Kirsch can use an XP50 or XQ50 to advantage in the area he hunts.

This has been my experience, anyway. So, a lot depends on the areas you hunt and I'm sure it's a challange to get just the right scope to do it all. If you predominately hunt open spaces more than close quarters, or vice versa, you probably will decide on a scope for the most often hunted situation.
 
What everyone has said is right. I hunt open fields with at least 200 yards to the tree line. For me, 4.5 native magnification is perfect for shooting. My future plans are to add a scanner with 2.5 native magnification.
 
I do have a Flir scout 2 handhel thermal for spotting.
And yes most of the time hunt by myself,farm fields.So i am use to the Zeus scope what i have even with 3 magnification.
I think one of those Pulsar 50 will be my next scope.
Like you said ATN can do advertising but the quality is not there.
I like to have something what will last me few years.
Thank you for all you help
 
I would strongly advise against buying ATN. Their customer service is a joke and I don't have the time to post all the stories I have about dealing with them. I've had my hands on just about everything except Pulsar and everyone here seems to like them. I know there were a lot of POI shift issues posted about them. I haven't been on here in quite a while so I'm not sure if they were ever resolved or not. One thing I have seen that I like about the Pulsars is the picture in picture (PIP) feature they have. With a 5K budget I personally would upgrade to the Zeus 640 with the 75mm lens. Just my opinion from what I have used. No limit I would go with IRD/Trijicon.
 
Back
Top