PULSAR THERMION 2 LRF XP60 THERMAL RIFLESCOPE

I should have seen this coming. After setting a new standard for thermal performance with the oversized sensors in their 1024×768 Thermion 2 LRF XL50 riflescope and the 1280×1024 Merger LRF XT50 biocular, Pulsar’s next logical step was to introduce a larger lens. Enter the new “60-series” scopes: the XG60, XP60, and XL60 (no XT60 yet). The model being tested here is the XP60, but this review will primarily highlight the advantages of the larger 60mm lens over the 50mm version, as well as the unique strengths of each of the three new 60mm models. As a result, I’ll be skipping over many of the features that make all Thermions so rewarding to use, including the programmable ballistic compensator that has transformed the LRF models into supreme wildlife-management tools.

Lens design and mounting
Let’s look at the lens first. Sensor-for-sensor, it gives all the 60-series Thermions a higher base magnification than their 50-series counterparts: 4x vs. 3x for the XG, 3x vs. 2x for the XP, and 2.5x vs. 1.75x for the XL. The second major benefit is an extra 15mm of eye relief, for a total of 65mm. This combines with a wider/taller eye box to bring the kind of ergonomic benefits that translate into smooth, comfortable, and consistent shooting.
Visually, the new series is immediately recognisable by the way the objective housing steps up to accommodate the increased lens diameter. For a moment, I wished Pulsar had scaled up the entire objective bell for a sleeker appearance. But then I considered the unnecessary redesign that would require, the extra weight it would add, and the need for higher mounts to clear the barrel—along with all the resulting costs, delays, and issues with comb contact that would entail! As it happens, mounting the XP60 on a flat-topped tactical arm, such as my Tikka TACT-A1, did require taller mounts than I’ve used on 50-series scopes, but it has an adjustable cheekpiece, and I’ve got a box full of mounts for such occasions. In any case, it’s not an issue that would arise with any of my conventional hunting rifles.

Display technology and performance
The second penny that dropped was that Pulsar has also done some significant up-sizing at the other end of the scope, which now sports a 40mm ocular lens and houses an all-new 2560×2560 Micro-OLED display that gives the image processor a massive 5.8 million more pixels to play with! It also occupies more of the circular viewing area, filling it without distortion from side to side, and leaving a narrower black frame at the top and bottom. The result was an experience that felt both more immersive and easier on the eye. Saved videos and stills are captured in a larger format (1280×960) and stored on a generous 64GB of onboard memory.
A further benefit of the 2560×2560 display is more precise reticle adjustment, thanks to finer click values: from 1.25mm @ 100m at 32x in the XG60 model to 2mm @ 100m at 20x for the XL60. When humane kills at range are the goal, a precision reticle is as important as a detailed image of the target, and even seemingly modest numerical increases can make a significant difference in the field.
Higher magnification compared to the 50 series does reduce the overall click range, but the XG60, XP60, and XL60 still provide 2,000mm, 2,840mm, and 3,200mm of adjustment per axis at 100m—more than sufficient for any properly mounted scope. It’s also worth noting that, unlike a day scope (which performs best when its mechanical components are optically centred), you can use the full range of adjustment on a digital scope without putting it under any strain, and that on an LRF Thermion, the on-board ballistic compensator will take care of the supplementary adjustments required for each shot.
The price you pay for higher base magnification is a reduction in the field of view. Across the 60 series, this amounts to about 16% to 17% horizontally, though the square format of the new Micro-OLED display actually increases the vertical FOV. In a thermal spotter, I will favour the field of view over magnification every time. However, the tables are turned in a riflescope, where the target has already been acquired, and magnification aids both definitive identification and precise shot placement.
A final surprise with the 60 series is how little the new hardware at the front and rear has impacted the scopes’ overall dimensions and weight, adding just 16mm in length, scarcely anything in width or height, and a mere 170g (6oz) in heft. Meanwhile, the main tube is still compatible with standard 30mm mounts, and it provides a comfortable 63mm and 60mm of tube forward and aft of the saddle, respectively. This means a degree of positional versatility that nicely complements the generous eye box.
All in all, the 60-series brings plenty to the table: higher base magnification, sharper reticle precision, a better viewing experience, more flexible mounting options, and a more forgiving eye box for faster and more comfortable target acquisition and aiming. Whether it’s worth it to you might depend on the model you’re eyeing. The premium for an XL60 over an XL50 is just £100, while the equivalent XP and XG models come in at £190 and £290 more, respectively. Honestly, given that I was expecting a steeper price jump across the board, I wouldn’t even see the XG’s increase as a dealbreaker.

NETD and sensor sensitivity
Now let’s look at the pros and cons of the three models in the 60 series. The XG60 leads on price and base magnification. Yet the XP60 has its own strengths: offering 42% more field of view and scoring well in a key area we haven’t mentioned yet—bad-weather performance. This edge is due to the XG and XL sensors using 12-micron pixels, which are less sensitive than the 17-micron pixels in the XP’s sensor. This difference is visible in their respective NETD scores: <25mK (XP), <35mK (XL), and <40mK (XG). The XL beats the XG by having 156% more pixels to capture photons, but it still can’t match the advantage conferred by the larger pixels, which enables the XP to outperform the others in high-humidity conditions, which dampens temperature differences.
An important development is that Pulsar now reports two NETD scores: true NETD and ‘system NETD’ (sNETD). True NETD represents the baseline sensitivity of the thermal sensor, while sNETD is a measure of the thermal profile of the image after it has been processed by the hardware and firmware in the device. The more processing you do, the lower you can push the number, and in a competitive market sector, NETD gets pushed and marketed hard. The problem is that making the device work harder consumes more power, adds latency, and can create an increasingly fictional image.
Pulsar does things differently. Having previously quoted only true NETD figures, by introducing sNETD into their data sheets, they’re simultaneously aligning with broader market practices and challenging competitors to reveal their true sensor performance rather than relying on system-optimised results.
The respective differences between the NETD and sNETD scores—7mK (XP), 15mK (XL), and 20mK (XG)—thus indicate the amount of “post-production” work each device is doing to achieve comparable sNETD results from each sensor type. Additionally, the fact that the final number for the XP remains lower (<18mK) than for the XG and XL (<20mK) suggests that Pulsar knew when to stop, prioritising the truthfulness of the image over pushing the XG and XL into a realm of splodginess and latency for the sake of a marketing claim.
As for the XL, its big sensor gives you the widest FOV in the range, and although it has the lowest magnification range of the three variants (2.5x-20x vs. 4x-32x for the XG and 3x-24x for the XP), this is comfortably offset by the fact that its far greater pixel count lets you use much more of the digital zoom before the image starts to pixelate.

Conclusion
Whichever model you choose, you’ll get a solid set of accessories, including two high-capacity APS3 (3,200mAh) rechargeable batteries, a dual charging dock, and a high-quality USB-C cable to charge the Thermion’s built-in 4,900mAh power pack. Smartly, even when an APS3 is installed, the system prioritises the onboard battery. The quoted run-time is seven hours, which is slightly less than the 50-series with an APS2, suggesting that the larger Micro-OLED display is hungrier than its predecessor. Also included in the durable Cordura storage case is a Bluetooth remote control, which can be attached with the included 3M Dual Lock strips, putting full control of the scope right under your fingertips for fast, seamless operation. As for the rest of the controls—ambidextrous focus dials, encoder wheel, power, zoom, ranging, and imaging buttons—there’s no change. So, if you’re already familiar with the LRF Thermions, there’s nothing new to learn.
The trouble with all this new technical information is it leaves no time to relate the pleasures of taking the XP50 afield. Suffice it to say, then, that it is an absolute treat to use, thanks to its combination of awesome imaging, an integrated 800m laser rangefinder, and a programmable ballistic compensator that provides swift and reliable target identification and acquisition, and precise and instantly applicable firing solutions on demand. In short, Pulsar has set a new standard. Again.