WT1-50 3 feedback?

A place for all thermal spotter and riflescope questions and info
spiralviral
Posts: 212
Joined: 27 Jul 2013, 21:23
Location: Aberdeenshire

WT1-50 3 feedback?

Post by spiralviral » 03 Dec 2017, 10:30

Hi guys, I'm not a long range expert, but I'm looking to acquire a decent thermal scope, and although I appreciate greatly the value for money the WT1-75 3 when on a group buy offer as compared to the little brother 50, I think I'd be a bit over-scoped with the latter; does any one here use the WT-50 3, and if so, can you give feedback as to its performance, my max distance I'm comfortable with is about 140-150 metres, and I'm sure the technical performance of the 50 will be up to that, even though the base magnification will be lower than the 75.

Currently using a quantum xq38 for a spotter, very happy with it, but think the added 12mm diameter in the lens of the 50, as compared to the Trail xq38, which is the other possible (cheaper) contender, but I appreciate the larger lens and the shutterless core in Clive's units.

Any advice or thoughts appreciated. Might try to get a look through the Pulsars at the thermal show at Dunkeld on Wednesday, but a, afraid Kent is just a bit far to run from Aberdeenshire to take a look at the WT 50, even though I do think it's the better choice for me as available now.

Cheers!

Sussexsteve
Posts: 113
Joined: 06 Oct 2013, 11:43
Location: Sussex

Re: WT1-50 3 feedback?

Post by Sussexsteve » 03 Dec 2017, 15:36

What are you shooting ? I’ve shot foxes from 20ft out to 330m with the 75-3.

User avatar
cliveward
FORUM SPONSOR
Posts: 1198
Joined: 02 Mar 2012, 20:19
Location: Ashford, Kent
Contact:

Re: WT1-50 3 feedback?

Post by cliveward » 03 Dec 2017, 16:27

The WT1 50-3 will easily do what you want. :thumbup:

This video is a bit of blast from the past but you can see it's possible to head shoot a small bunny at the ranges you want (and still ID bunnies behind it that are getting on for 300 yards!)



Foxes would not be a problem at all at these sensible ranges. I would say 200 yards max for an instant 100% easy ID on the 50-3.

It's a really nice compact scope and a great field of view especially for shorter ranges.

In comparison. System resolution is better than the 38mm Pulsar but the same as the 50mm Pulsar. Once you get past that, every other aspect is better. Better lens, better core and better display with more system magnification. :thumbup:

These are a bit more niche than the 75-3 but there is no reason why we can't add one to the group buy for you at a special price.


Cheers





Clive

AnthonyR
Posts: 371
Joined: 24 Aug 2012, 14:11
Location: Rochford, Essex

Re: WT1-50 3 feedback?

Post by AnthonyR » 03 Dec 2017, 17:46

Personally if you don't want the distance that a 75mm lens offers I would go for a Pulsar Trail XQ50, hasn't got the legs of WT75-3 but has got it beaten in every other department and it's a grand cheaper.

I have compared a WT75-3 and an XQ50 back to back and that would be my verdict.

User avatar
rodp
A bad influence
Posts: 4160
Joined: 09 Mar 2012, 22:49
Location: The Black Country

Re: WT1-50 3 feedback?

Post by rodp » 03 Dec 2017, 18:12

AnthonyR wrote:Personally if you don't want the distance that a 75mm lens offers I would go for a Pulsar Trail XQ50, hasn't got the legs of WT75-3 but has got it beaten in every other department and it's a grand cheaper.

I have compared a WT75-3 and an XQ50 back to back and that would be my verdict.
Thought he was asking about the 50-3? I suppose at the end of the day you only get what you pay for though, pay less and get less.
"Land Rover, the worlds best 4x4 by far"

"Argo, a great 8x8"

User avatar
cliveward
FORUM SPONSOR
Posts: 1198
Joined: 02 Mar 2012, 20:19
Location: Ashford, Kent
Contact:

Re: WT1-50 3 feedback?

Post by cliveward » 03 Dec 2017, 18:30

The only thing that the XQ50 trail and WT1 50-3 have in common is system resolution.

The WT1 has a faster lens for better thermal sensitivity, better shutterless core, better display and more optical magnification.

Price wise it is going to be a bit more, but not much than an XQ50 in a group buy.

For some perspective, I could have an XQ50 Trail for my rimfires but I don't. I have a WT1 50-3 even though the trail is cheaper at cost. 8-)


Cheers





Clive

spiralviral
Posts: 212
Joined: 27 Jul 2013, 21:23
Location: Aberdeenshire

Re: WT1-50 3 feedback?

Post by spiralviral » 03 Dec 2017, 19:51

Thanks for the responses so far, all.

As to settling to a final choice, I have to say I'm tending to be with Clive and the WT disciples, inasmuch as I'd rather spend the hard earned once and well, and whilst I am sure the Trail XQ50 is well worth the grand less and therefore great value, I'd be happier with the better specified WT1 50, as per Clive's response above. The faster lens is a great advantage and something overlooked by many, as is (I feel) the shutterless core - as one who used to use a 9hz FLIR HS307 spotter, believe me I know about both lag and refresh timeouts; I should add though, I'm very happy with my Pulsar q xq38 spotter, and have not considered the helion seriously to replace it, primarily because I like the versatility of the easily replaceable batteries -AA's in the Quantum's case, and not a bespoke/unique solution like the Trail/Helion, and the rechargeable CR123's fit into this particular category/specification desireability, again speaking for me personally. FYI a good pal uses the quantum xq50 spotter, which we've compared alongside mine on a number of occasions, and which I'd readily agree is superb, but I'm personally happier I have a wee bit wider field of view with the '38 for spotting, though look to have a wee bit more mag for the bashing!

To further clarify, I've been considering and researching for over a year now, and just wanted to keep an ear to the ground re ongoing reliability of my own shortlist of potential contenders (the FLIR was flawless in this respect); the earlier Pulsar models suffered somewhat from various issues what I could read and gather, and in the case of the Helion, there are still some wrinkles needing addressing I understand. I'm personally not going to be needing wifi, sound, recording or other whistles and bells as such, but I'll be happy to pay for excellent performance, service and above all, qreliability.

Ultimately, if the only difference between the WT1 75 and the 50 is the objective lens size, a little less weight and bulk, and of course the cost (thanks for the generous offer Clive, I'm definitely going to be in touch to follow up with you the very kind offer you've made to include in a possible group buy), then I'm feeling pretty much that I'd personally be happier to go the distance with what I feel will be a superior product for my purposes. I just wanted to hear if anyone in the forum (apart from Clive!) has had first hand user experience of the WT50 before I take the plunge, and note this is not really addressed thus far, but I respect Clive's expertise, experience and advice, and do know a few with the '75 whose knowledge and experience I greatly respect, and all of whom swear by them.

In the main, I will be gathering bunnies in new plantations, and removing errant foxes from the estate here.

Thanks again all.

Sussexsteve
Posts: 113
Joined: 06 Oct 2013, 11:43
Location: Sussex

Re: WT1-50 3 feedback?

Post by Sussexsteve » 03 Dec 2017, 19:58

Having looked through both I personally like the image of the 50-3 better than the image through the pulsar

phoenix
BRUCE ALMIGHTY
Posts: 4748
Joined: 09 May 2012, 14:40
Location: Aberdeen

Re: WT1-50 3 feedback?

Post by phoenix » 03 Dec 2017, 21:07

Steve,
If you want a look through some thermal spotters and scopes that essentially use the same cores and lenses as Clives, then give me a shout.
I have a 50-3 scope,a 75-6 scope, a 50-3 spotter, a 50-6 spotter and 75-6 spotters.
All shutterless cores and all f1.0 lenses

Cheers

Bruce
LAND ROVER - THE WORLD'S WORST 4X4 BY FAR

spiralviral
Posts: 212
Joined: 27 Jul 2013, 21:23
Location: Aberdeenshire

Re: WT1-50 3 feedback?

Post by spiralviral » 03 Dec 2017, 22:38

Cheers Bruce, I'll be in touch very shortly!

Post Reply