Pulsar Thermion xm30 vs xm38

Pa. Mick

Pa. Mick

Well-known member
Xm30 3-13x25
Xm 38 4.2-16.8 x32 ( $500 more )

Looking for info ( differences )on these models. Being the newest models just coming out, there’s not a lot out here right now. Watched the latest YouTube videos. Really wish I had both of these to compare them myself.

Anyone that has the opportunity to use these please post the good/ bad experiences you have for all of us future buyers. Thanks guys !!!
 
Last edited:
That’s why it would be nice to get hands on to compare side by side ! I presently use a 3-12x56 Vortex and like the magnification bringing coyotes up closer at times.
No doubt I’m losing some field of view.
 
Well I suppose I'm totally ignorant on the subject of microns and magnification so I'll ask the question for some of the learned professors here.

Is there some hardware issue that prevents a 12 micron scope with a 320 core from having a 1.5 to 2.5 power base mag?
 
Micron size plays one factor in this. I explained a lot of the concepts behind this Here. If you have a smaller objective, and/or move to a 640 x 480, the zoom decreases and FOV increases.

The Flir PTS 233 is a 12 micron 320 scope with a 1.5x base mag. This is due to a small 19mm objective, leading to a lower focal length. The biggest issue is the smaller objective can lead to less effectiveness in higher humidity conditiongs.
 
Thank you K. So, if I'm understanding this correctly the f1.2 aperture is the only arbitrary part of the equation on native mag. I'm supposing that Pulsar could have also used an f1.0 aperture and decreased the native mag, but there must have been some trade off to prevent them from doing that.

Sort of looks like it all means they can build the scope cheaper and still charge the same price.
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleUpThank you K. So, if I'm understanding this correctly the f1.2 aperture is the only arbitrary part of the equation on native mag. I'm supposing that Pulsar could have also used an f1.0 aperture and decreased the native mag, but there must have been some trade off to prevent them from doing that.
Yes, the aperture makes a difference as it changes the focal length which affects the base mag. Flir used a f1.0 aperature on the PTS536 and is the reason it is a 4x as it would be even higher if they used a f1.2 for instance.

Prices on thermals have come down dramatically in the last 5+ years. 2K$ scopes were not a possibility even just a few years ago. There are lots of brands and many different configurations. Some may fit one hunting style and terrain, while others don’t. As 12 micron, 640x480 become more common, lots of additional base mag and wider FOV options will be prevalent again. Currently, NVision and Trijicon are in that space but others will join too,
 
Originally Posted By: Pa. MickI read that info you had posted before & I just read it again. It’s starting to make some sense, I think, lol. Thanks for posting the link Glad it helped as my explanation wasn’t exactly simple either but I wanted to at least explain the basis for why certain specifications lead to Base Mag and FOV results. Base Mag and FOV to me are absolutely critical considerations when buying a thermal.
 
We don't have any Thermion XM30's but I've got a couple XM38's and XM50's in stock. You have 7 days for delivery date to make sure it's what you want.
thumbup.gif
 
Back
Top