Pulsar Rumours

Status
Not open for further replies.
We all know your views on Clive Ward though hornady though don't we! It wouldn't matter if he sold the best gen 3 in the world for less than the price of a pint you would still manage to slag him off for it hence you being removed from other forums.
Clives WT1-75 3 is a cracking unit! Would I buy one after using one, probably not as I will go back to a drone pro to compliment my XQ50 spotter as I like to confirm my target 110% but that doesn't mean Clive's thermal scope isn't excellent because it is and before you ask, yes I have had pinnacle grade pvs-14s etc but would still go drone.
 
Last edited:
Why ? Based on the video, just what does the NV offer over the thermal. The video shows how in all demo's, the thermal was better than the NV ! Even the detail was better through the thermal ! NV just seems so yesterday !
That video is highly misleading. It could not be more from the truth when it comes to how the real world looks through both.

Look at how bright the light is in the gen 3 which washes out all the contrast in the image. It's practically daylight in comparison to a naturally lit rural scene. Plus the thermal is man sized and not rabbit or fox size. You cannot mistake a man at that distance but you can think a dog is a fox at 100 easily. You can think a cat is a fox easily at even less. A sheep head is also problematic in thermal from distance.

Add in the fact that's American thermal which trounces the pulsar stuff and euro made cores you get a much better image than pulsar etc.

The poor magnification ranges of thermal units is the real issue with current thermal devices. Gen 3 doesn't have this problem. It also lacks background details especially in field conditions in cold wind or wet.

Thermal has its place but its a complimentary technology and not a replacement for gen 3. You can use it on its own but you will miss shots miss opportunities and end up in unsafe situations more often than gen 3. If you have both then you will rarely have to pass on a kill shot.

Also remember I don't need a video I have both and use both and when I don't have one or the other I feel limited.
 
We all know your views on Clive Ward though hornady though don't we! It wouldn't matter if he sold the best gen 3 in the world for less than the price of a pint you would still manage to slag him off for it hence you being removed from other forums.
Clives WT1-75 3 is a cracking unit! Would I buy one after using one, probably not as I will go back to a drone pro to compliment my XQ50 spotter as I like to confirm my target 110% but that doesn't mean Clive's thermal scope isn't excellent because it is and before you ask, yes I have had pinnacle grade pvs-14s etc but would still go drone.

What are you even talking about? who mentioned clive? we are talking in a pulsar thread. but carry on trying to bait. I was also not removed from any forum. i told them to remove me, its in the thread go look. i dont want to be on any forum where you can pay to manipulate how a product is perceived or be lied to about military testing of said product. Thats all im saying on this.

Get back to the topic.
 
What are you even talking about? who mentioned clive? we are talking in a pulsar thread. but carry on trying to bait. I was also not removed from any forum. i told them to ban me. its in the thread go look. i dont want to be on any forum where you can pay to manipulate how a product is perceived or be lied to about military testing of said product. Thats all im saying on this.

Get back to the topic.

haha if you say so! I believe Clive's thermal was mentioned and you knocked it in this thread. Anyway I have always had good dealings with him so can't be bothered to get into it on here.
 
That video is highly misleading. It could not be more from the truth when it comes to how the real world looks through both.

Look at how bright the light is in the gen 3 which washes out all the contrast in the image. It's practically daylight in comparison to a naturally lit rural scene. Plus the thermal is man sized and not rabbit or fox size. You cannot mistake a man at that distance but you can think a dog is a fox at 100 easily. You can think a cat is a fox easily at even less. A sheep head is also problematic in thermal from distance.

Add in the fact that's American thermal which trounces the pulsar stuff and euro made cores you get a much better image than pulsar etc.

The poor magnification ranges of thermal units is the real issue with current thermal devices. Gen 3 doesn't have this problem. It also lacks background details especially in field conditions in cold wind or wet.

Thermal has its place but its a complimentary technology and not a replacement for gen 3. You can use it on its own but you will miss shots miss opportunities and end up in unsafe situations more often than gen 3. If you have both then you will rarely have to pass on a kill shot.

Also remember I don't need a video I have both and use both and when I don't have one or the other I feel limited.


They say that the quality of video, is far poorer than what you see through the sight itself, so in reality, the thermal would actually give a clearer, more detailed picture than that video, which was clearly more detaild than the NV !

We also need to have a reality check, and base things on the average user. So, what you personally need, and use to achieve this, isn't necessarily what the majority need. You're into long range night shooting, I think you've posted somewhere out around 550m, way further than most will shoot. And then we have cost, I think I saw a post where you said your equipment cost £9,000.00 ? considerably more than most, and hardly comparable, with even the most expensive Pulsar thermal !

Unsafe situations, why ? Anything unsafe, is down to the shooter, not the type of sight, and like any shooting scenario, if you don't know the back stop, you don't take the shot !

I think the real point, is making sure opinions, and comments are relative, and cost is comparable.
 
They say that the quality of video, is far poorer than what you see through the sight itself, so in reality, the thermal would actually give a clearer, more detailed picture than that video, which was clearly more detaild than the NV !

We also need to have a reality check, and base things on the average user. So, what you personally need, and use to achieve this, isn't necessarily what the majority need. You're into long range night shooting, I think you've posted somewhere out around 550m, way further than most will shoot. And then we have cost, I think I saw a post where you said your equipment cost £9,000.00 ? considerably more than most, and hardly comparable, with even the most expensive Pulsar thermal !

Unsafe situations, why ? Anything unsafe, is down to the shooter, not the type of sight, and like any shooting scenario, if you don't know the back stop, you don't take the shot !

I think the real point, is making sure opinions, and comments are relative, and cost is comparable.
The only time i ever hear someone say the thermal looks better through the scope is from the people trying to sell you the scopes. The video out on a thermal looks exactly like the youtube videos. Ive seen both now on many occasions. The NV cannot be recorded in the same way its very hard to get a good video as you have an analogue output not a digital video out. So the Gen 3 always looks better than the video. The resolution on Gen 3 is much higher than can be recorded and the thermal is exactly the same resolution and video quality.

Gen 3 can be cheap, Envis for £1500, PVS14 can be as little as £1800 to £2500 depending on model Raptors £3.5k, D760's £3k, Gen 3 Kites £2000-£2500. I used a PVS14 for 7 years on and off and it was great. i could get to 20x optical on a PVS14.

Thermal weapon scopes have come along way with the Trail. But you are still mag limited from 1-4x optical and then you can trade resolution for digital mag. Your accuracy and range are going to be limited and so will identification range. Personally i hate low mag shooting and hate zeroing dedicated scopes as its a pain, especially thermals.

You can get a thermal spotter and a Envis/PVS14 and have best of both for about £3k soon.
 
The only time i ever hear someone say the thermal looks better through the scope is from the people trying to sell you the scopes..

Two simple questions.

Have you ever stalked deer in daylight in your life?

Why do you think that a video recorded at 640x480 resolution is going to be better than actually looking at the screen no matter whether its NV or Thermal?
 
Based on the video, just what does the NV offer over the thermal. The video shows how in all demo's, the thermal was better than the NV ! Even the detail was better through the thermal ! NV just seems so yesterday !

Getting the facts straight, the video was apples to oranges comparison. Furthermore, it's relevant to night time shooting only if you prefer around 1x magnification.

Thermal unit was 60% heavier (570g vs. 350g), 60% bulkier (180mm vs. 114mm), had 60% more magnification (1x vs. 1.6x). Thermal costs around 30-35% more. Kind of taking Mazda MX-5 and comparing the trunk size to Landcruiser...
 
Why do you think that a video recorded at 640x480 resolution is going to be better than actually looking at the screen no matter whether its NV or Thermal?

Since the screen in the device is also showing the same 640x480 video, external recording should be on par unless there's some lossy compression in use.

When viewing the same video, why do YOU think it looks better on smaller screen? Like 1" vs. 20" or 30"?

At least lower spec thermal benefit greatly from external display, even if it's only low quality 7".
 
Since the screen in the device is also showing the same 640x480 video, external recording should be on par unless there's some lossy compression in use.

When viewing the same video, why do YOU think it looks better on smaller screen? Like 1" vs. 20" or 30"?

At least lower spec thermal benefit greatly from external display, even if it's only low quality 7".


No idea but every pulsar owner on youtube says the picture is better than what you see on you tube. Is the AV worse than what res go to the screen?
 
Two simple questions.

Have you ever stalked deer in daylight in your life?

Why do you think that a video recorded at 640x480 resolution is going to be better than actually looking at the screen no matter whether its NV or Thermal?
Firstly what has stalking deer got to do with thermal vs. Gen 3. Answer is yes my first shoot had sika and muntjacs. I now have muntjac on my latest permission. I just prefer nighttime vermin hunting. Also shooting deer at night is not legal is it so I'm assuming that people are not thinking about thermal for that use.

Also the small screen is likely to hide just how bad the image quality is as you are looking at the size of a large postage stamp with a miss matched poor resolution. The external screen on your Samsung oled phone is 10x better. My retina display on my mac is better and so is my 1440p IPS monitor better. Also YouTube does not need to compress the video because the image quality and size is already so poor that the size of the video is not large or complex. You can now stream at 4k if you want.

Look at pulsar online videos and compare the WT1 videos on there which both use YouTube and tell me which videos look better. The old APEX videos with the 25 micron core look better than the WT1. The new trail ones look even better imo. But have a look decide for yourself.

Even 640x480 resolution is really really really low resolution. The contrast is produced by a core which has very very bad thermal sensitivity. Vox American cores blow away Amorphous silicon and the claimed performance isnt anywhere near reality. The image is produced by a lens which just like glass has to be polished and pure. Consumer grade stuff has low quality glass. All these factors add up to what you see through the device. Add in the fact that your reticle and zero are controlled by a pixel on the screen which at 1.6x optical on 640 core moves by how much at 100 yards per pixel??? I can't even find quoted figures such as moa or milli radians. So that's my ballistic calculator useless. My thermal has been with TJ for 2 weeks now and I'll get a new one in 2 weeks time. It had a power problem where it turned off and forgot all its settings. What do you think happens when that happens on a rifle scope which needs to remember your zero?

Thermal units make very very useful spotters. You get all benefit of them without any of the risk or headache. You get none of the limitations such as poor mag. You don't need the highest spec model to get the benefits either. Even a cheap model will see a black dot at 300 yards to tell you an animal is in a field.

You only have to watch YouTube and see all the videos are shots taken around 100m or less. Why do you need thermal to shoot at such short distances.. Even a £350 digital can do that.
 
Last edited:
No idea but every pulsar owner on youtube says the picture is better than what you see on you tube. Is the AV worse than what res go to the screen?
I have a pulsar and I can tell you it looks Exactly the same. Wait until a cold windy night and the image is horrid. It still sees a black spot in a field though so that's all I need. I'd hate to shoot with the image like that though as it's distracting to say the least. Catch the sky and the image is wiped out also.
 
Getting the facts straight, the video was apples to oranges comparison. Furthermore, it's relevant to night time shooting only if you prefer around 1x magnification.

Thermal unit was 60% heavier (570g vs. 350g), 60% bulkier (180mm vs. 114mm), had 60% more magnification (1x vs. 1.6x). Thermal costs around 30-35% more. Kind of taking Mazda MX-5 and comparing the trunk size to Landcruiser...
Exactly.

Also lonestar bores sell thermal kit and thermal is the new kid on the block and they want their gen 3 customers to call in and upgrade. The video doesn't show you that you can put a 5x lens on the gen 3 if you want to. Or what happens when thermal has the sky in the background and washes out.

That video is so one sided and missleading they could not have picked a worse way to compare. But that is the point.
 
I had a look at the old pulsar apex on youtube compared to the WT1 75-3 and the WT1 75-3 looks are clearer to me by a long shot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top