Which has the better image? IR MKll 35 or Trail XP50

case-nh

Active member
Haven't had any experience (sad to say) with the IR scopes so was wondering which has the better image? Read a comment or two that a guy posted who said the XP50 was better than one of the IR scopes. Wouldn't think it would be the III's. Just looking for info. if you've been fortunate enough to have compared the 2 of them.
 
I might be the guy that you mention cause I have made that statement on this forum. I have 3 MK2 35mm and one xp50. The MK2s are slightly grainier. I have only looked thru my MK2s and no others so its just my experience. My xp50 is superlativley clear but I think I detect further with the MK2s for some reason. The xp50 is better when the humidity gets up. My first xp50 didn't hold zero and neither does the one they replaced it with and sad to say they are still have some issues but I'm so addicted that I have an trail xq38 on order. Just set an XP50 lrf for a buddy and am happy to say it killed an axis this weekend. And it also had a very clear image. I hear great things about the MK3, wish I could get my hands on one and one of Skypups Flir 70.
 
Last edited:

Igor, be sure to give a review of the Trail XQ38 once you have had a chance to use it enough to give a good assessment. I am curious if the POI issue has been taken care of.
 
Originally Posted By: case-nhHaven't had any experience (sad to say) with the IR scopes so was wondering which has the better image? Read a comment or two that a guy posted who said the XP50 was better than one of the IR scopes. Wouldn't think it would be the III's. Just looking for info. if you've been fortunate enough to have compared the 2 of them. one of the things I like about the Pulsar versus the Trijicon is that the Pulsar you can focus it. The Trijicon comes with a pre-set focus. So the pulsars able to be customized and adjusted for your eyes whereas the Trijicon focus is set in a position to try to please everyone which is impossible
 
I have a XP50 Helion scanner and a mk3 60mm Trijicon. My hunting partner has a mk2 35mm. 99% of the time the Trijicon scopes have a better image than the XP50. There have been a couple occasions (very rare) where the humidity levels were just right and the XP50 had a better image than the Trijicons. Under optimal conditions where all thermals perform well (low humidity) the mk2 and mk3 outperform the Pulsar hands down.
 
Pretty much what I see with the humidity. I have had very few agree or comment positively on that factor. I'm certainly not dissing the MK2s, I can easily detect a group of cattle at a mile away. Pretty sure of that distance cause we have a lot of feed yards in the area and am infinitly familiar with the region day or night. My Pulsar is so good that I was wondering if all 3 of my Trijicons were subpar. The other thing about the Trail line is PIP. I have really used and enjoy the PIP. Now if I can just get a Pulsar to hold zero. Never had any performance issues with a trijicon.
 
Last edited:
Mine has been holding POI fine since the upgrade probably a year ago. Seemed to have "settled out" before I sent it in but had another small issue also.
 
Originally Posted By: case-nhHave no doubt the MK3's do but was curious on the MK2's. Good input.

I own both a mark 3 60 mm and a mark 2 35 mm. I do not believe there is any quality difference in the clarity between the two. I think the guts are all the same, except the 60 mm gives you abit more clarity with less field of view because of the lesser quality with additional magnification with digitally zooming in. It is my understanding the mark 3 has a few more Features with it like more reticle choices and the stadametric range finder.

If you want to you can send your mark 2 35 in and get it upgraded to a 60 mm mark 3 if you want. I did and only got charged the difference in price of what it would have cost to purchase them new

I use them both depending on where I’m hunting, thicker closer = mark 2 35 mm. More open with a chance of longer shots = 3 60 mm

I also use an IR Patrol 300 to scan. Have liked it so far but I made the mistake of hunting with a guy in Wyoming last week who used an IR reaper to scan, wow! It was great quality and light weight. Not sure if it will mount on my helmet. But I’m going to check it out it was awesome. I’ve used my Patrol also for a weapon sight and it has worked well but the Reap IR is hands down better as a sight as well.
 
Originally Posted By: g BoOriginally Posted By: case-nhHave no doubt the MK3's do but was curious on the MK2's. Good input.

I own both a mark 3 60 mm and a mark 2 35 mm. I do not believe there is any quality difference in the clarity between the two. I think the guts are all the same, except the 60 mm gives you abit more clarity with less field of view because of the lesser quality with additional magnification with digitally zooming in. It is my understanding the mark 3 has a few more Features with it like more reticle choices and the stadametric range finder.

I also use an IR Patrol 300 to scan. Have liked it so far but I made the mistake of hunting with a guy in Wyoming last week who used an IR reaper to scan, wow! It was great quality and light weight. Not sure if it will mount on my helmet. But I’m going to check it out it was awesome. I’ve used my Patrol also for a weapon sight and it has worked well but the Reap IR is hands down better as a sight as well.

The Mark III differences are the stadiametric range finder, same reticles except 4 POI storage points in the Mark III and only one in the
Mark II, X/Y axis readouts for reticle position in the Mark III, and a double lever Larue mount on the Mark III and single lever on the Mark II. Everything else is the same for both scopes.

The big difference in the original REAP IR was the lens. The 35mm REAP IR has a Gasir lens as apposed to Germanium in the other units. It supposedly gives a better image but I owned a REAP IR for awhile and did not notice a big difference. The REAP IR has a 12 deg FOV vs the 22 degree FOV of the M300W which would make the image bigger and more detailed.

The REAP IR has the same software as the Mark III units so it would be a better choice as a scope because the Patrol M300W has only one reticle. One advantage the M300W has over the REAP IR is an objective focus ring vs the digital focus presets in the REAP IR software.

I use the Patrol M300W as a scanner and I have a clip on 2x magnifier that makes the image approximately the same as the REAP IR with regard to FOV. The 2x lens is not rated for recoil and can only be used when scanning.

The major difference between the IR Mark II and the Pulsar XP50 is the core pitch. The Mark II has a 12 micron core vs the 17 micron core in the Pulsar. The 12 micron core is going to give a sharper more detailed image.

 
Last edited:
GMAN what 2x magnifier are you using on your M300W and does it work well for you. I have a 250 patrol for scanning and bought a torey pines 3x magnifier. could not get it to work so returned it.

thanks
 

Originally Posted By: Gman757Originally Posted By: g BoOriginally Posted By: case-nhHave no doubt the MK3's do but was curious on the MK2's. Good input.

I own both a mark 3 60 mm and a mark 2 35 mm. I do not believe there is any quality difference in the clarity between the two. I think the guts are all the same, except the 60 mm gives you abit more clarity with less field of view because of the lesser quality with additional magnification with digitally zooming in. It is my understanding the mark 3 has a few more Features with it like more reticle choices and the stadametric range finder.

I also use an IR Patrol 300 to scan. Have liked it so far but I made the mistake of hunting with a guy in Wyoming last week who used an IR reaper to scan, wow! It was great quality and light weight. Not sure if it will mount on my helmet. But I’m going to check it out it was awesome. I’ve used my Patrol also for a weapon sight and it has worked well but the Reap IR is hands down better as a sight as well.

The Mark III differences are the stadiametric range finder, same reticles except 4 POI storage points in the Mark III and only one in the
Mark II, X/Y axis readouts for reticle position in the Mark III, and a double lever Larue mount on the Mark III and single lever on the Mark II. Everything else is the same for both scopes.

The big difference in the original REAP IR was the lens. The 35mm REAP IR has a Gasir lens as apposed to Germanium in the other units. It supposedly gives a better image but I owned a REAP IR for awhile and did not notice a big difference. The REAP IR has a 12 deg FOV vs the 22 degree FOV of the M300W which would make the image bigger and more detailed.

The REAP IR has the same software as the Mark III units so it would be a better choice as a scope because the Patrol M300W has only one reticle. One advantage the M300W has over the REAP IR is an objective focus ring vs the digital focus presets in the REAP IR software.

I use the Patrol M300W as a scanner and I have a clip on 2x magnifier that makes the image approximately the same as the REAP IR with regard to FOV. The 2x lens is not rated for recoil and can only be used when scanning.

The major difference between the IR Mark II and the Pulsar XP50 is the core pitch. The Mark II has a 12 micron core vs the 17 micron core in the Pulsar. The 12 micron core is going to give a sharper more detailed image.




Thanks gman. Great post!
 
Back
Top