Had a chance to hunt with the brand new Flir PTS 736 for the past few weeks. Had this unit mounted on my AR-10 .308 and shot many many rounds in several different hunting conditions. It was used in warm weather, cold weather, rain and clear skies. Here's my full review of the Flir PTS 736 with a few hunts mixed it. I'll also go through my likes and dislikes and here's alittle glimpse into the video... This is a great scope.... but for someone else, not me... and not for the type of hunting that I do here in East Texas.. and I'll let you know why...

Another great video Hans.

Good info

It’s funny but 7 years ago a civilian dude like myself wondered if I could ever afford a thermal weapon sight (TWS) and now look at us , saying that a sub $ 10k scope has too much zoom/ base magnification ....

I wonder , would it be possible for FLIR to design a software / firmware line of code that would remap the image to an offset zoom I.e. a - 2x zoom feature ?

The image would shrink in the viewfinder but still be usable for placing a shot inside of 50 yards ....

Imagine a scope that could serve both hunting scenarios (open field and box blind hunting) they’d rule the market !

At the moment I’d say the 2.8x Pulsar scopes are hard to beat for dual purpose hunting because of the Picture in Picture feature that gives you realistic capabiltiy at extended ranges (150 yards plus)

I wish Pulsar would put a 75mm lens on some of their current models - it’d be an interesting comparison with this new line of FLIRS

Can't wait to get in the field and try mine!!!

I think 50mm on a Thermal is perfect for what most people on here do. My 70mm OTS is great for a Monoc, but I sure wouldn't want it on a scope.

Why would you not want 70 or 75mm on a rifle scope?

The pts536 4x16-50mm version is on the shelf for a while longer I was told today the 50mm lenses are a no show if anyone is wanting one

Thanks Bud! I appreciate that...

I'm interested to hear what you have to say about it DNS... Please let us know

I agree.. it's hard to beat a Pulsar for a pig hunter like me from ETX..

Is this thermal only rated to 308 like the other FLIR?

I had this guy that always comment son my pics on the Ft Hood hunting Facebook page message me and was all excited said he finally bought a thermal. His plans were to use it on a shotgun like I do with my Pulsar. I asked what thermal he got and it was the FLIR pts233 rated for 408 Max. I told him he got passed, I had warned him prior to buying to make sure the recoil rating was high enough for shotgun use but he didn’t check. After I told him he called FLIR and they told him it’s not rated for shotgun and not to use it on there. He literally only bought it to use on Ft Hood now he has a paperweight.

I can recall only one time I've shot anything over 200 yds, and that was after dropping one at say 75, so most of my shots seem to be 100yds or under. I just prefer a less zoomed in/wider field of view to be able to keep track of the other goings on in my firing line of sight. Targets and non-targets alike. Just me, I was dropped on my head as a baby.

FLIR called yesterday and said they were expecting them in late May or early June. They called to tell me because they mistakenly charged me the price for 15 PTS536's last week and sent me info saying they were shipping..... Come to find out it was all and error and they were instead shipping me 15 PTS233's. I was disappointed but I'll take the 233's!

Hans, after using the new flir, and the trail, which do you like better? Native mag thrown out of equation, just function/view . Curious about other people’s thoughts on it

I'm not Hans but I've spent a month behind the PTS736 so I'll throw in my 2 cents.

It was awesome finally seeing the 12 micron Boson core in a scope with a focus-able and large objective lens. (as opposed to the small fixed lens of the PTS233). Even though it's only 320x256, the image quality on the 736 is better than any of the 384x288 Trails and I don't think there could even be any debate about it. However....it can't be overlooked that the 736 has a 75mm objective and the largest objective lens on any of the Trail XQ's is less than 50mm. A real comparison will be when the 536 is released.

The user controls on the Trails and ThermoSights are so different it's hard to even compare them. I like the soft easy cushioned press of the Trails but I like the simplistic menus on the ThermoSights. I like the PiP and audio recording on the Pulsars but I like the on/off switch and the reticle color options on the FLIR.

At the end of the day, it's really hard to compare them because the 736 does have 6x magnification and I know you said to forget that but if we are just talking image quality and nothing else.....the FLIR wins. If you are talking features, button ergonomics, built in battery packs, audio recording etc....the Trail wins. I can definitely see a case for buying either one depending on what features you need/want.

I'm ready to see the PTS536. If FLIR had made the 536 2.5x or 3x I think they'd have taken a TON of business from Pulsar. Choosing the magnifications they did, they gave Pulsar the biggest present imaginable with a cherry on top.

Here is a short video of some great footage from Hans showing just how clear the image quality really is on the 736. Some of it was in his review video but I think a couple clips might not have been.

- Jason

I don't think you were dropped too far, but I think you may have confused some things, slightly. Lens size and magnification aren't determining factors in FOV. You really need to look at the specs because not all scopes are made the same way and there are multiple factors to consider. In other words, you can't just dismiss lens size and say a bigger lens isn't going to give you as much FOV. For example, let's compare a Pulsar Apex XQ50 and Armasight Zeus 3. The Pulsar has a slightly lower magnification of 2.8x than the Zeus at 3.0x. The FOV of a Pulsar Apex XQ50 2.8-11.2x50mm is 7.5° /5.6° degrees whereas an Armasight Zeus 3-24x70mm has a larger FOV of 8.3° / 6.6°. So the larger lens and slightly higher magnification has a larger FOV! So in this case, you would not want the 50mm lens over the 70mm lens because the 50mm lens has the smaller FOV.

Granted here, the Pulsar is only 384 resolution and the Armasight is 640 resolution and costs a lot more, but for your criterion of FOV (with similar magnification), the Armasight is the better choice between the two.
When it comes to thermal scopes, it is best to look at individual details.

I don't think you can consider the view of these scopes without taking into account native magnification as the view is definitely tied to the magnification.

I have now used both scopes and will chime in with my opinion. I think the Pulsar has a better menu system and better operation with their buttons than the FLIR. The FLIR is based on the Armasight body style (it IS the old Armasight body) and improved menu system from the Armasight (and I hunted with Armasights for years). In these regards, I think the FLIR is good and a bit easier to learn but the Pulsar is better, albeit a bit more difficult to learn. I like all the options present on the Pulsar's menu that are more numerous than on the FLIR menu. The FLIR has more controls to improve image quality and you may be able to eek out a better picture if you work through the options on any given day, but the image on the Pulsar is going to look good with less effort.

The buttons on the Pulsar are definitely easier to use than the recessed buttons on the FLIR if you are wearing gloves.

I found the perfect gun to go with the FLIR 736

You might even be able to use the 4x zoom feature

20 mm rifle

Ah man.. that’s a tough lesson to learn.. yes the 736 is only rated up to .308.