Pulsar Thermal XQ38 v XQ50

hunta

Well-Known Member
I'm considering buying one of these for spotting. The XQ50 is very slightly larger and slightly heavier but that is not an issue. Has anyone had the opportunity to compare them. They will be used mostly for deer in both woodland and open fields and occasionally for boar and fox.
 
I find the XD38 is too bright, even when set to minimum level. Does the XQ50 allow it to be dimmed to a lower level that doesn't trash your night vision?
 
I find the XD38 is too bright, even when set to minimum level. Does the XQ50 allow it to be dimmed to a lower level that doesn't trash your night vision?

I'm pretty certain that any NV sight, or spotter will screw your night vision, because you're shining a light directly into your eye, and then expecting your eye to react immediately to the dark.

Try turning both brightness, & contrast down, and the best tip I was given, spot with the eye you don't shoot with. Also, and this may sound silly, when spotting at night, and I'm aware it's still a little bright, I open, and shut the eye I'm spotting with, like a slow blink, and find that helps.
 
I have the xq38 and would not be stalking without it. It picks up deer at distance that your binos will have a great deal of difficulty finding no matter how carefully and slowly you scan. You can scan an area very quickly which is the main advantage.
As for foxes at night its a great tool to have.
I have not compared the 38 and 50 together but from all the research I did prior to buying the 38 has a greater field of view which is why I bought the 38.

bryn
 
I'm considering buying one of these for spotting. The XQ50 is very slightly larger and slightly heavier but that is not an issue. Has anyone had the opportunity to compare them. They will be used mostly for deer in both woodland and open fields and occasionally for boar and fox.

I would go for the XQ38 over the XQ50, as it has a better field of view for woodland.
 
Thanks for your replies. My thoughts were to get the XQ38 but after a small amount of research I was told that in practice the field of view of the 50 wasn't much less than the 38 and that the 50 will allow for better identification. I think the ideal scenario would be to be able to take both units out and compare them.
 
Firstly agree if you are using a Thermal spotter at night firstly turn the brightness down as low as you can get away with. Yes it does knacker your night vision in my caes the eye I use the spotter with takes on a brown cast after the shortest of use. If solo shooting scan using your none shooting eye and use your thermal sparingly, don't keep it glue to your eye. In normal situations you will spot deer and foxs often well before they are in reasonable range so just use it sparingly to get to suitable range.

When shooting as a pair I tend to do most of the spotting and the only time its more than a few seconds is when were are in the position to take a shot so you can see the resulting strike and position of quarry post shot. Normally with BT foxs dont move but in very rare occasions then the quarry may run and then die so much easier to locate and retrieve.

I have had 3+years experience with a 38s and the briefest look through the latests version which I though is miles better than the original.

I hope this helps

D
 
just got a xq38, What a learning curve. Very frustrating for driver and shooter when spotter is looking
but not communicating much!, so much so that i have added a screen for driver to see whats happening.
Next up will be a second screen with a NV cam to drive by
 
Firstly agree if you are using a Thermal spotter at night firstly turn the brightness down as low as you can get away with. Yes it does knacker your night vision in my caes the eye I use the spotter with takes on a brown cast after the shortest of use. If solo shooting scan using your none shooting eye and use your thermal sparingly, don't keep it glue to your eye. In normal situations you will spot deer and foxs often well before they are in reasonable range so just use it sparingly to get to suitable range.

When shooting as a pair I tend to do most of the spotting and the only time its more than a few seconds is when were are in the position to take a shot so you can see the resulting strike and position of quarry post shot. Normally with BT foxs dont move but in very rare occasions then the quarry may run and then die so much easier to locate and retrieve.

I have had 3+years experience with a 38s and the briefest look through the latests version which I though is miles better than the original.

I hope this helps

D
One of my main uses is to take the dogs out for a walk, with a rifle. I've taken an XD38 with me recently for a few days and it really is great to watch all sorts of wildlife activity but I'm going to break a bone, or a rifle from the blinding effect & loss of night vision. I can normally find my way round without a torch fairly comfortably, but the 'loss' of one eye finds me tripping up endlessly. I would have though it possible to lower the brightness significantly and to use a red/black combination (although thinking about it that colour combination is terrible for contrast)
 
When shooting as a team communication is clear and its v frustrating as the spotter that the shooter can see what you are.

Two weeks ago I spotted a fox at probably 150 yds which was shot prone of some disced stubble just as we were about to move I clocked another previously unseen fox as it tried to make a hasty exit across the field infront of us. The shooter using a Drone couldn't make it out and I as normal moved his weapon in the correct direction. Charlie was sitting up but could not be seen then eyeshine and dead, the reason being it was looking away and brown fox on brown soil is very difficult to find, unless you get eye shine.

We are now pretty practised at this but comms is critical at night.

D
 
1) There's a new SCI View Share module available that will let you WiFi the image from the Quantum to tablets/smart-phones.
2) Also, you can use the rail on the Quantum to mount an IR illuminator. The thermal can't see it, but it will tell a shooter with an NV sight exactly where to look for the target.
 
Thanks for your replies. My thoughts were to get the XQ38 but after a small amount of research I was told that in practice the field of view of the 50 wasn't much less than the 38 and that the 50 will allow for better identification. I think the ideal scenario would be to be able to take both units out and compare them.

Based on Pulsar website the following figures are quoted for Horizontal Field of View (FOV) at 100m:

XD19s 50.5m XQ19 34.4m
XD38s 25.0m XQ38 17.2m
XD50s 19.2m XQ50 13.0m

So effectively the new XQ38 has a narrower FOV than the older XD50s model.
Comparing the XQ50 directly with the XQ38, the XQ50's FOV is approximately 1/3 less, which is quite significant.

I agree that ideally the best way would be to compare both units in the field, but not many people actually get the chance to do this.
Based on known XD38 performance, if planning to mainly use in woodland environment I would go for XQ38 over XQ50.
 
got a screen wired up now, think its actually better than the view finder.
I drive and shoot often on my own. looks like i need a through the roof mount for the thermal now.
And a NV cam and screen to drive by, and a switch to turn off the brake lights.
Not to mention the big local shoot having a war on the foxes causing a big drop on the population
 
Based on Pulsar website the following figures are quoted for Horizontal Field of View (FOV) at 100m:

XD19s 50.5m XQ19 34.4m
XD38s 25.0m XQ38 17.2m
XD50s 19.2m XQ50 13.0m

So effectively the new XQ38 has a narrower FOV than the older XD50s model.
Comparing the XQ50 directly with the XQ38, the XQ50's FOV is approximately 1/3 less, which is quite significant.

I agree that ideally the best way would be to compare both units in the field, but not many people actually get the chance to do this.
Based on known XD38 performance, if planning to mainly use in woodland environment I would go for XQ38 over XQ50.

Hi sikasako,

Thanks for that. I calculated that the XQ50 has 0.75 % of the field of view of the XQ38 but I agree it is still significant. The majority of my stalking is open field where the 50 would probably be better however I do enjoy stalking muntjac in woodland hence my interest in the XQ38. What your message showed me was that the field of view of the XQ50 is approx. half that of the older XD38. I've used the XD38 so halving the field of view sounds even more significant. I have an XQ50 coming for me to try so I will let you know how I get on with it.
 
Hi sikasako,

Thanks for that. I calculated that the XQ50 has 0.75 % of the field of view of the XQ38 but I agree it is still significant. The majority of my stalking is open field where the 50 would probably be better however I do enjoy stalking muntjac in woodland hence my interest in the XQ38. What your message showed me was that the field of view of the XQ50 is approx. half that of the older XD38. I've used the XD38 so halving the field of view sounds even more significant. I have an XQ50 coming for me to try so I will let you know how I get on with it.

Be interesting to see what you think of the XQ50.

One of my mates is thinking of getting the XQ38 so if he does it shall be interesting comparing that with the XD38s.

Would highly recommend mend getting a neckstrap for the Quantum. (Pulsar one is around £15)
Saves your pricey investment from being dropped !
 
Be interesting to see what you think of the XQ50.

One of my mates is thinking of getting the XQ38 so if he does it shall be interesting comparing that with the XD38s.

Would highly recommend mend getting a neckstrap for the Quantum. (Pulsar one is around £15)
Saves your pricey investment from being dropped !

Very good idea about a neck strap. First impression of XQ50 is good. Had it out a couple of mornings and evenings and once the focus, brightness and contrast adjusted to suit my eyes I was seeing stuff well beyond the capabilities of my Leica 1200 rangefinder. I found that my eyes became acquainted to the thermal image after using the unit for a short time, as they do when using night vision, and the image became more clear. In the open they are amazing for scanning the area. I have yet to use them properly in woodland but plan to do so very soon. Will update once I have.
 
I've now taken the XQ50 into woodland during the late afternoon , evening and from 1st light until approx. 9.30am. The unit is impressive in both dark and day light. At very short range the image was still clear although more field of view would have been nice. Would the 25% greater field of view of the XQ38 be a great advantage and does the higher optical magnification of the XQ50 give the ability to ID things more accurately ? I don't know but I suspect its marginal. I'm still hoping to have a look through an XQ38 and if I do ill let you know what I think.
 
has anyone considered how they actually use a thermal?

i don't think that fov matters. you are not using your eyes like when you use binos. you just need to see a flash of a hotspot and thats enough to be able to home in on the quarry.
 
For the price difference get the better one.
you don't need field of view like you do in binoculars
you are not looking for brown against brown in low lights

you are looking for white hot against grey
you scan back and forth very quickly with small field of view to locate then focus in on target to confirm.

like looking for eye shine with a torch at 200m
significantly less than a 13m fov but you find foxes
 
Back
Top