Night Goggles Inc

Predator Masters using UBB.threads ô Infopop Corporation.
PM Gear Moon & Weather

Welcome to the Predator Masters Forums
Be sure to visit the main Predator Master website at





PM Gear
PM Gear
PM Gear
The Official Predator Masters Search Engine
Search Predator Masters

Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#3205712 - 06/12/19 12:09 AM Re: Which has the better image? IR MKll 35 or Trail XP50 [Re: Gman757]
Shaun Simma Offline
Predator Master

Registered: 10/28/12
Posts: 81
Loc: Wisconsin
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

Top
#3205773 - 06/13/19 02:22 AM Re: Which has the better image? IR MKll 35 or Trail XP50 [Re: Gman757]
g Bo Offline
Die Hard Member

Registered: 04/20/14
Posts: 547
Loc: Utah

Originally Posted By: Gman757
Originally Posted By: g Bo
Originally Posted By: case-nh
Have 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 Iím going to check it out it was awesome. Iíve 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!

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2



Moderator:  Jason El Paso, SkyPup 

© Predator Mastersô, All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.