Pulsar APEX XQ50 Thermal Riflescope , demo video of all reticles in black and white modes

I have no complaints with this scope after more than a year of owning it.

I’m thinking about hunting with reticle option 12 after spending some time behind the scope

great video bud!

I've said before and I'll say it again, the Pulsar Apex XQ38 and XQ50 are currently the best bang for the buck on the thermal market. If you're looking for the fancy features like internal recording then there are other great options but for an all around great thermal scope without breaking the bank....the Apexes are the winners in my opinion.

Great video and as good as it looks, that doesn't even do justice to how good the image looks when actually looking through the eyepiece. Nicely done!

- Jason

At this time I am looking for something to put on my Larue Tactical, This may be it! Thank you!

I’m very happy with mine. Don’t have a lot of time looking through it, but it’s a solid scope for what I wanted it for.

I am needing education.
What is the difference between XP50 and XQ50?

The LaRue Tactical and Pulsar APEX are a lethal combination and not too hard on the eyes either









The XQ50 is a no frills 384 resolution scope, the XP50 is not an APEX it is a TRAIL model and comes with onboard recording and a rechargeable battery cartridge along with 640 resolution and less native magnification and a higher price tag.

The xp is a 640 core (better picture)
Xq is 380 core. (Good picture, very useful, never be unhappy with it, until you look through your buddies 640. Then you sell to upgrade. Then buy a backup 380 just like you sold. Because you’ve got other friends that are to cheap to buy their own. Then you sell that one because , your cheap friends, don’t have quite enough sense to know they’re looking at pigs. Or is that a calf ?? Wait don’t shoot yet, I’m not sure . Hell with it . Just ordered 4 trijicons....)

All seriousness. Don’t let anybody tell you you’ve got to have a 640. It was several years before I ever had one. Killed plenty without .

Thank you both for great info.

Pig Popper,
Simply beautiful set up.
When mine grows up it wants to be like yours.

Midway is right. 640 cores offer a better image quality and once you use one, you'll want one but it's definitely not "required". I sort of view it like heated/air conditioned leather seats....man their nice! Once you ride around with them for awhile you don't want to go back to cloth seats but in reality, cloth seats are still really nice and comfortable. 640 is great for a very serious, dedicated hunter and/or the guy who has the money to spend on it. These new 384 cores are really nice and they will do the job all night every night.

Jason

Actually, no, Midway is not right. The XP, being a 640 core, doesn't give you a better picture. It will give you a different picture, but not a better picture, not in terms of resolution, at least not between the Trail units and I suspect that goes for the Apex as well. Why? Because Pulsar gives you almost the exact same number of pixels per level of magnification. The XP will give you a wider FOV at native magnification (a whopping 1.6x) with 640 resolution that the XQ doesn't have. However, at the same level of magnification, for the number of pixels that come into play, the XQ is actually better on the Trail models, but only slightly and not enough to discern. For example...

At 2.7x, the XQ50 has 110592 pixels in use and the XP50 has 110407 pixels in use. Pretty darned close, right?
At 5.4x XQ50 has 27648 pixels in use and the XP50 has 26970
At 10.8x XQ50 has 6912 pixels in use and the XP50 has 6742

$ for $, the XQ models are the better value in regard to image, but the XP gives you a little more versatility.

For all practical purposes, the picture quality is going to be the same, given the same level of actual magnification.

Yes I stand corrected. I am Wrong.....

Incorrect.



Correct.

But unless I missed it, no one was talking about matching the magnification levels and then comparing the resolution. I do explain this concept to customers all the time who say they want an XP50 but are going to use it on 3.2x because 1.6x isn't enough. I tell them to buy an XQ50 instead. Your math and logic are dead on accurate.

However, to say that the XP50 doesn't give a better picture is extremely misleading at best. We can line up 10 people who have never used thermal, hand them all a XQ50 and a XP50 on their native magnifications and I'll bet money at least 9 of them could tell you which scope had the higher resolution and which one they thought had the better image quality. I've had a lot more than 10 people who had never looked through a thermal scope in their life look at those scopes side by side and they all knew the XP50 as soon as they put their eye up to it.

I understand that 1.6x isn't enough magnification for everyone but that's a whole different topic of discussion. There are times when 1.6x is too much magnification for me. I rarely ever move my magnification above 1.6x. It all depends on your hunting conditions, property and personal preferences. And to be clear, this isn't a slam against 384 cores, I think I made that clear in my previous replies above but I will argue that, yes the XP50 does have a better picture and I believe Midway was right in his observations.

No, saying that the XP50 has a better picture is misleading BECAUSE of the pissant low level of native magnification and the fact that at comparable levels of actual magnification, they are using nearly the same number of pixels. So the XP50 has some expanded range into the low end, but in reality, Pulsar FAILED to take advantage of the 640 core to actually make a scope with significantly better capabilities despite using significantly more capable core.

So the 640x480 XP50 core uses 307200 pixels at native magnification. The 384x288 XQ50 uses 110592 pixels at native magnification. So you might think that you get 2.78 times the capability, but Pulsar hamstrung the XP50 with the super low level of native magnification. In other words, it excels at the low end.

You can argue that the XP50 has a better image, but that is really only at the low end of magnification because once they are at the same level of magnification, they are using nearly the same number of pixels and the image quality is comparable.

The thing here is that having a good thermal image up close isn't where the challenge is when it comes to seeing and identifying targets. The challenge of a good image is down range. Here, the XP50 fails to convert all those extra pixels into a better image than the XQ50.

This is really where Pulsar screwed up for the consumer. They should have made the XQ50 line be 1.6x because up close you don't need as many pixels to make identifications, and then made the XP50 line with its 640 core be 2.7x so that the user could really see things better down range. This blunder keeps the XP50 from competing well with the Armasight Zeus 3x 640 or Trijicon 2.5x scopes. STRANGELY, however, they made the Helion XP50 with the same core be 2.5x.

So for comparable magnification with the much less expensive Trail XQ50, you get the same lens, same hz rate, same firmware, and virtually the same number of pixels, same Ulis brand thermal core, same controls, same housing, etc. as the XP50 for virtually the same image. Here you have to keep in mind that there is a huge amount of magnification overlap between the two scopes where the image quality is pretty much the same. That would be in the range of 2.7-10.8x

Again....it absolutely has a better image on the base magnification and my hard earned money says that any reasonable person looking through it will agree. And that is what the entire previous discussion in this thread was about.

You are making assumptions about hunters desire or abilities to shoot on low power magnification and/or their ability to stalk up on their target. I understand not everyone can walk up on hogs like so many of us in East Texas and much of the South can. I spot most of my hogs at 250-400 yards and I stalk up and shoot the vast majority at 30-40 yards max. I don't need or want 2.1x, 2.5x or 2.7x. My reason for not using a Trijicon REAP-IR for my main thermal scope is precisely because it is 2.5x. If they made it in a 1.5x, it would probably be my go to. I also freely admit that many people NEED and want more than 1.5x, but not everyone.

At the end of the day, everyone needs to weigh all the facts, including the fact that if you're going to run around using the XP50 on 2.7x magnification or higher you should buy an XQ50. I absolutely concur with that. I also suspect we will see some higher magnification 640 units from Pulsar in the coming years.

I have nothing against FLIR/Armasight or Trijicon, they all make great products and I sell them too, but you speak of Pulsar's blunder, screw up, fail and hamstringing but the XP50 is still the #1 selling 640 scope on the market 2 years running and Pulsar can't manufacture them quick enough.

The good thing about the current thermal market is that there is something for everyone now days and the prices are better than ever.

This is solid entertainment...... anytime you take a 640 core , and zoom in digitally, you will cut resolution, making it roughly equivalent of it 300 core counterpart . So basically anybody that bought/owns a 640 is a moron . Mr Jason, just admit your wrong , don’t know anything, and move on....

Separate note, you made a good choice having eat texas Hans represent your brand. The company you keep , says a lot about your business.

Actually no, anybody who bought a 640 resolution scope isn't a moron, but buying a 640 scope isn't the be all to end all of the features that are critical to image clarity. Things like magnification, lens size, hz rate, etc. all come into play. A 640 scope can most definitely be LESS capable than a 388 or 320 resolution scope depending on the other attributes that make up the scope. To suggest otherwise would be naïve.

How about those reticles ....

Mr Jason , I’d like to take back my statement about Hans. I forgot he suffers from the same delusions that other folks in his area suffer. He thinks he lives in east TX. Anything west of the trinity on 7, or north of teneha is no longer east Texas.

And just so everyone is clear, this was meant to lighten the mood. I’ve never met Hans, and don’t care where he thinks he lives . Carry on

Mr pig popper. I apologize for taking part in steering you topic of course. The video is appreciated, I know it took some effort on your part. I’ve been working on a project with a dvr, and have had very little success figuring it out . Thanks for taking the time to do it

Ha! Thank you so much sir, you're a gentleman and yes sir, Hans is an excellent guy. He's one of the nicest, most sincere guys I know and he's extremely humble about his hog hunting abilities and knowledge.

You know, I knew he was suffering from something when he said on our podcast one week "I got Jason out here to East Texas to hunt with me...." I corrected him and made sure he knew I had to drive WEST to get to him. I'm only 30 miles as the crow flies to Louisiana. He's a nice enough guy, I guess we can forgive him.lol

- Jason

I agree and I apologize for the hijack. I'm just a stickler for correcting confusing information when I see it online. I bite my tongue most times but I spend so much time talking to confused potential customers that I figured I better at least leave an explanation.


As I said before, the Apex XQ38/XQ50 are awesome scopes and your video is by far one of the best I've seen from actual footage from an Apex. Nicely done!

Any comments on battery usage? How do the CR123As hold up? Don't think I care much about the video, but I don't like messing with batteries.

JR

I think battery usage is determined by how you use it. If you want to leave it on and use it all night, probably will chew up some batteries. I use a monocular for scanning and really only turn the scope on when I want to firmly ID something, follow something pre-shoot and to shoot. Simply turning the scope video off when not looking through it will make a difference.

Scope batteries will last me several hunts, as long as I don't accidentally turn it on and run 'em down. I do find some reason the XQ turns on easier accidentally vs the XD it replaced.

I bought the external battery pack and have never looked back, probably saved some money at this point with the regular use I’ve been putting the scope through

There's an external battery pack for the Apex XQ50?

Well worth the money

http://www.pulsar-nv.com/products/battary-packs-eps/battery-pack-eps3i-/

Well damn... I never knew. Thanks for posting!

Yep Pig Poppper is right and actually there are 2 different models. The EPS3i and the EPS5. The EPS3i weighs 8oz, runs for 6-8 hours and has a picatinny mount on the back so it will mount on the small picatinny rail on the left side of the Apex or if you have quad rail it can mount there too. The EPS5 weighs 12oz (no picatinny mount) and using some (not included) velcro straps can be attached to your buttstock. It runs the Apexes for 16-20 hours. Normal prices are $129 and $149 respectively.

If you're hunting for short times here and there they might not be worth it for you but if you really use your scope for long periods they are awesome. It does add some weight but the nice thing is you have the option with the two models of either adding it to the scope or to the buttstock, whichever you prefer. I actually give away the EPS3i for free with every Apex and a lot of guys tell me they didn't think they'd need it but they like not having to always keep a ton of CR123's on hand. I've also had several guys say they last longer than the estimated run time, which is a rarity, most batteries never last near as long as they are supposed to.ha!

Jason

Thanks guys,

I've been debating an Apex XQ50 or a Trail XQ50. With the above info, I've pretty much decided on the Apex with the Battery Pack.

JR

I think that's a great choice. It's $1,000 less, so if you don't need the phone app or internal recording that's a lot of money to keep in your pocket.

Jason