Xq38 trail or pts536 for coyotes?

1

1toppy

New member
I’m debating between these two scopes and was wondering what the going consenses were if there’s some one out there that has experience using both. Thanks for any info ahead of time!
 
Both of these are excellent choices. Your deciding factor will be distance. For commom shots 200 yards and under, go Pulsar. For distances never under 100 yards and normally 150 and over, go Flir. But truthfully both will work flip flopped roles. Either one is a great choice.
 
I've owned both scopes. Here are my thoughts. In general, if you plan to scan with the scope, then I would get the XQ38. The other factor is the range of your shots. If you shoot most of your coyotes from 50-150, I would say the XQ38. If you shoot more in the 100-300 range a lot or in very open terrain, then the Flir PTS536. Overall, the Pulsar has a cleaner background image, but the Flir does a better job at Positive ID. Here are the Pros of each scope:

Flir PTS536:
1) Better Postive ID (More Base Magnification)
2) Color Reticles
3) Color Palettes
4) User Configurable Automatic Shot Activation
5) Better Scope Base
6) NUC process is much quicker
7) Better Accuracy?
8) Better Video quality

Pulsar Trail XQ38
1) Better Background Image
2) Bigger Field of View
3) Built in Rechargeable Battery
4) More complete smartphone integration (including screen sharing)
5) Records Sound (and video where Flir is video only)
6) Better Customer Service
7) Picture In Picture
8) 384 core vs 320 core (Flir PTS)
9) Better recoil rating

Here is where the real debate comes in. I believe the Flir PTS536 is the more accurate scope. What do I mean by this. I am talking about the groups I can shoot with each scope. It may be the better ID/higher base mag of the Flir, but I can virtually shoot the same groups as my glass scope. The second portion is as the scope NUCs, there doesn't seem to be as much scope movement with the FLIR, which I believe leads to a more accurate scope as well. I have hunted from -10 to 80 with my Flir and it doesn't seem to move at all.

I believe both can serve your needs very well. Give Tom at Night Goggles a call after Shot Show, and he can provide more details as well. Tom Austin PROGRAMS DIRECTOR 909-312-5424 X531
 
Originally Posted By: cmatera I think a better comparison would have been the PTS536 to the xp38 Actually, if trying to compare the closest as far as features, view, and price, it would be the Pulsar Trail XQ50 to the Flir PTS536. My comments would have still been the same. The both have a 50mm objective, their retail price is almost identical, they are both 320 (384 Pulsar) cores instead of 640 and the XQ50 has the highest base mag in the Pulsar line up. Although, still not near the base mag of the Flir. One other thing I didn't mention related to this is I tested the base mag and the FOV with an ATN, Pulsar Helion, and several glass scopes against the Flir. They were all pretty consistent with the exception of Pulsar. From my limited testing, 4x on the Flir was more than 6x on the Pulsar, so it seemed Pulsar's magnification rating isn't as high as they say in comparison to other brands.
 
Thanks for all the info. I was considering a new xq38 but have found a pts536 for about the same money still with warranty. That’s why I was comparing the two. My shots will more then likely all be under the 200 yard range. A lot of rolling hills and hollers where I hunt.
 
Kirsch seems to like the PTS 536 and does quite well with it. I guess my main concern would be the apparent narrow FOV of 4.5 degrees. Not sure just how that translates out in feet at 100 yds., but probably somewhere around 20 feet. The XQ50 has a 13.1 meter FOV at 100 meters which according to my calculations is about 43 feet, and has the advantage of the PIP for a more magnified view of the target while still maintaining the wide FOV in the main view.

One advantage either of these thermals have over the digital scopes which all digitals seem to have is their notoriously narrow FOV. The targets are just so much easier to acquire with thermal as they just seem to jump out at you IMO.

Good luck with your purchase. All of us will be looking forward to your review and some hunts on video with whatever you choose.
 
Well fellas I’ve decided to go with the pts536. The only thing that worries me is the 4x base magnification which makes less fov then the xq38 so follow up shots and doubles but I scan with an old pulsar ld19a and it has plenty of fov. Wish me luck!
 
I was on the fence to between these two and just decided to go with the xp38. I was concerned with the FOV since most of my shots will be under 150. Hope it works out good for both of our choices.
 
Back
Top