I like the term versatile. This unit gives me the clarity of my trijicon, with bells and whistles and warranties like my ATN/Iray's, and the ability to use for up close shots and long distance. A lot of people don't understand how challenging a hunt can be when you are solo and your scope is either lacking on FOV for scanning purposes or inability to zoom with a decent picture to identify a heat signature over 1000 yds. I don't see any product that offers the best of both worlds. The iray pro might but it is still 640. Thank you for the review.
Travis very informative video as usual!! Im in the uk, recently bought a thermion 2 xq50 pro lrf, had troubled getting accurate readings , so i checked the lazer beam orientation, and was very dissapointed, to see that the laser beam was vertical!!! With a verticaL beam its very easy to be getting a an actual reading from way behind your target especially on flat ground !!!(Easily checked by using a normal night vision scope or spotter ) My axion xq38 lrf spotter has , a horizontal beam, making accurate range finding extremely easy!! Best wishes,rgds steve
I have been having outstanding success with the Bobro SCAR QD Mount, the American Defense AD Recon S is really solid, LaRue Tactical also makes good stuff.
So what am I looking at around the 6 minute +? Is that the rangefinder view, or the reticle view? The PIP is smaller one the range finder and the the larger (main) the reticle? Also… is that one deer wearing a trash bag on his rack? 😁
The current firmware version only accounts for elevation. However, the elements are there to incorporate windage, and I believe that we ultimately be part of the equation as well.
I have only seen the Rico Pro once and certainly haven't compared them side by side. With this said, they essentially set out to accomplish the similar task of providing both wide FOV and high magnification. On paper, it certainly seems Pulsar goes about it the less complex yet theoretically more reliable way by letting the sensor do the work from a fixed position vs. moving more complex lens elements. I know Pulsar had a device concept almost identical to the Rico Pro that they abandoned for some reason. (Maybe they know/ knew something?) On the high-end (resolution), pixels/per unit area is aprox. the same on both devices regardless of the 3x lens vs. 1.75x. On the low end @1.5x the Rico would obviously have larger FOV at 17.5 degrees horizontal and potentially better signal intensity because of the shorter focal length, however the Pulsar would have almost 3.75x the pixel density from 1.75X through the power range until you shifted focal lengths to 50mm in the Rico cutting it to 8.8 degrees and the same resolution (pixels per unit area 1740) as XG50 LRF, XL50LRF, HALO 50...) Did I also mention the Pulsar device is European made with US customer service and support?
I like the term versatile. This unit gives me the clarity of my trijicon, with bells and whistles and warranties like my ATN/Iray's, and the ability to use for up close shots and long distance. A lot of people don't understand how challenging a hunt can be when you are solo and your scope is either lacking on FOV for scanning purposes or inability to zoom with a decent picture to identify a heat signature over 1000 yds. I don't see any product that offers the best of both worlds. The iray pro might but it is still 640. Thank you for the review.
Travis very informative video as usual!! Im in the uk, recently bought a thermion 2 xq50 pro lrf, had troubled getting accurate readings , so i checked the lazer beam orientation, and was very dissapointed, to see that the laser beam was vertical!!! With a verticaL beam its very easy to be getting a an actual reading from way behind your target especially on flat ground !!!(Easily checked by using a normal night vision scope or spotter ) My axion xq38 lrf spotter has , a horizontal beam, making accurate range finding extremely easy!!
Best wishes,rgds steve
Very impressive. Well done review.
Thanks for watching.
what was that quick disconnect mount for this scope? I couldn't make it out. I want to use it on a few different rifles.
I have been having outstanding success with the Bobro SCAR QD Mount, the American Defense AD Recon S is really solid, LaRue Tactical also makes good stuff.
So what am I looking at around the 6 minute +?
Is that the rangefinder view, or the reticle view?
The PIP is smaller one the range finder and the the larger (main) the reticle?
Also… is that one deer wearing a trash bag on his rack? 😁
Does the ballistic calculator account for wind as well or only elevation?
The current firmware version only accounts for elevation. However, the elements are there to incorporate windage, and I believe that we ultimately be part of the equation as well.
@foxoptic5887 thanks for the help.
waiting on a zoom tech with Pulsar 1.5x to 4x at 1024 sensor would be sweet ( in the Telon configuration )
Hi .
How do you charge the remote controller ?
I have an xg50 and you can’t make the x disappear like yours does and it doesn’t have the wid option for reticle
That’s going to be available with a firmware update.
It's coming for the other models at some point.
How does this Pulsar 1024 HD thermal compare to the iRay Rico Pro (optical zoom 1.5 to 3)?
I have only seen the Rico Pro once and certainly haven't compared them side by side. With this said, they essentially set out to accomplish the similar task of providing both wide FOV and high magnification. On paper, it certainly seems Pulsar goes about it the less complex yet theoretically more reliable way by letting the sensor do the work from a fixed position vs. moving more complex lens elements. I know Pulsar had a device concept almost identical to the Rico Pro that they abandoned for some reason. (Maybe they know/ knew something?) On the high-end (resolution), pixels/per unit area is aprox. the same on both devices regardless of the 3x lens vs. 1.75x. On the low end @1.5x the Rico would obviously have larger FOV at 17.5 degrees horizontal and potentially better signal intensity because of the shorter focal length, however the Pulsar would have almost 3.75x the pixel density from 1.75X through the power range until you shifted focal lengths to 50mm in the Rico cutting it to 8.8 degrees and the same resolution (pixels per unit area 1740) as XG50 LRF, XL50LRF, HALO 50...) Did I also mention the Pulsar device is European made with US customer service and support?