Pulsar N550

[white van man]

Hi All,

 

I had my Pulsar n/v scope mounted on a cz.22,the bolt hit the scope when loading,I used scope risers but they were too high,so the gun has gone to a good home.

I had a Ruger No1 .223 lined up but the seller may now keep it.

Any idea's of a suitable rifle, straight pull maybe but I have no experience of these.

My first choice is still a No1.

 

Cheers.

[Gimlet]

My N550 is fitted to my .22 HW60. I have no problems with the bolt fouling the scope. Maybe the CZ has a high bolt throw. Fully raised, the bolt handle on my HW barely reaches 2 0'clock. I wouldn't want the scope raised any higher, it sits plenty high enough as it is.

Haven't heard of this problem before. I guess, check the height of the bolt throw on any rifle you've got in mind for this scope.

[Matt Gould]

http://www.claysports.tv/index.php/watch-again-2/mark-gilchrist mark don't have no trouble with the n550 on his cz in this video

[white van man]

http://www.claysports.tv/index.php/watch-again-2/mark-gilchrist mark don't have no trouble with the n550 on his cz in this video

Hi Matt,

 

I've checked out Mark Gilchrist's video and on a closer look on the first shot he has his chin on the stock and the gap between scope and action is quite big I've just measured the gap on the scope and it's 8mm.

My guess he is using riser's (if you read this post Mark please let us know).

I've checked the bolt throw on my other guns .270 Remmy, 22.250 riflecraft Remmy and a RWS Titan in .243 without taking scopes off the only one with a much shorter throw is the RWS.I may go for another RWS ( I'm well happy with with this one) if I cant get my hands on a Ruger

 

Cheers Steve

[foosa]

My n550 sits well on the tikka t3 with weaver rail and has plenty of bolt clearance, have added comb riser to the stock to make it more fitted to cheek though.

[FX90]

Hi All,

 

I had my Pulsar n/v scope mounted on a cz.22,the bolt hit the scope when loading,I used scope risers but they were too high,so the gun has gone to a good home.

I had a Ruger No1 .223 lined up but the seller may now keep it.

Any idea's of a suitable rifle, straight pull maybe but I have no experience of these.

My first choice is still a No1.

 

Cheers.

I had the same trouble, a mate has ground part of the bolt **** off and a little from the scopr base and is happy with it. I went down the other road and changed one of my CZ's for a Ruger 10-22, sorted.

[white van man]

I had the same trouble, a mate has ground part of the bolt **** off and a little from the scopr base and is happy with it. I went down the other road and changed one of my CZ's for a Ruger 10-22, sorted.

Hi

I was beginning to think I was the only one who was having this problem.I did put it on my 10-22 and it was great,but I really wanted to do foxes with it and the scope is fine at 100mtrs but I feel the .22 is under power so I'm looking at .223. I use a 22.250 for daytime work on foxes and if the odd muntie pops his head up no problem.

So I think the way forward is a falling block or straight pull.I would love a Blaser but ca'nt afford a divorce.

Cheers

[DR JAMES]

I have just recently bought a Pulsar N550 NV scope and I have placed it onto my CZ .17HMR bolt action rifle as have x2 of my other M8`s. We all after my first M8 ERIC put his onto his CZ have put Weaver blocks on as the CZ is a picadilly rail & the Pulsar is a weaver mounted scope. By putting these Picadilly to Weaver block mounts onto our Cz`s the bolt now does not hit the scope but does raise it up slightly but these are nessacery to add on to the CZ as it keeps the whole thing centraly inline with the rifle as well. Hope this helps anyone with a CZ bolt action rifle who intends to put a Pulsar N550 onto it.

[Jesse James]

I have just recently bought a Pulsar N550 NV scope and I have placed it onto my CZ .17HMR bolt action rifle as have x2 of my other M8`s. We all after my first M8 ERIC put his onto his CZ have put Weaver blocks on as the CZ is a picadilly rail & the Pulsar is a weaver mounted scope. By putting these Picadilly to Weaver block mounts onto our Cz`s the bolt now does not hit the scope but does raise it up slightly but these are nessacery to add on to the CZ as it keeps the whole thing centraly inline with the rifle as well. Hope this helps anyone with a CZ bolt action rifle who intends to put a Pulsar N550 onto it.

 

 

As above I, had to fit a weaver rail to my CZ 452 .17HMR.

Due to fitment and to lift it because of the bolt hitting the pulsar sight.

 

it does sit high, but no issues for me. for above post.

 

lee

[wymberley]

I have a N550 and a Ruger #1 in 22 Hornet. The Pulsar is fitted with the doubler with an attachment for additional IR for up to 200+ yards if needed. After some messing about, the Pulsar now lives on the LR. Each to his own as always, but I've found that at the normal foxing ranges using a NV monocular for spotting and the proverbial 170 for shooting works just as well. The expense stops me from getting a second N550 (someone mentioned divorce and I've had the monocular for years!).

 

Biased, obviously, but your thoughts on the #1 for my money (literally) are on the nose.

[wymberley]

Just thought of it. If you use the N550 remote cable switch and the connector which is an elbow (L) shape and the normal verical stroke of which does indeed hang vertically, unfortunately, downwards, the rifle bolt can also foul on this. It's worth noting that with care, the unit socket can be rotated 90 degrees to prevent this. Just slacken the locknut considerably so that the rubber ring portion of the socket protective cover which is retained by the locknut is not split when the socket is rotated which is best done by attaching the connector for use as a "spanner".

[mick miller]

I would say you'd be far better off selling the Pulsar and buying a nitesite. As far as I can see you have to raise the Pulsar with most rifles to clear the bolt, or grind bits off the picatinny mount, or some other bodge. By which time your head is so far off the stock you're shooting with your head up anyway. Then you realise that you cannot accurately zero the rifle as the increments are so large (2cm), then your limited to the fixed zoom or you have to buy a doubler (more expense). After that you discover that your illuminator is distinctly average and have to buy something better/ brighter in order to see owt.

 

Far better to have a system which can be swapped between rifles, has a good on-board illumination, is as good as the scope you attach it to but requires the same heads up position as a Pulsar anyway (but for half the cost).

 

My mate had to grind away the mount, ripped the rubber cups off the AV in/out when he cycled the bolt and found the ergonomics of the Pulsar to be laughable. All within the first week. Oh yes, and he finds it difficult to shoot anything over 80 yards from standard. Top draw that.

Edited April 2, 2012 by mick miller

[steve_b_wales]

I would say you'd be far better off selling the Pulsar and buying a nitesite. As far as I can see you have to raise the Pulsar with most rifles to clear the bolt, or grind bits off the picatinny mount, or some other bodge. By which time your head is so far off the stock you're shooting with your head up anyway. Then you realise that you cannot accurately zero the rifle as the increments are so large (2cm), then your limited to the fixed zoom or you have to buy a doubler (more expense). After that you discover that your illuminator is distinctly average and have to buy something better/ brighter in order to see owt.

 

Far better to have a system which can be swapped between rifles, has a good on-board illumination, is as good as the scope you attach it to but requires the same heads up position as a Pulsar anyway (but for half the cost).

 

My mate had to grind away the mount, ripped the rubber cups off the AV in/out when he cycled the bolt and found the ergonomics of the Pulsar to be laughable. All within the first week. Oh yes, and he finds it difficult to shoot anything over 80 yards from standard. Top draw that.

 

+1

[wymberley]

I would say you'd be far better off selling the Pulsar and buying a nitesite. As far as I can see you have to raise the Pulsar with most rifles to clear the bolt, or grind bits off the picatinny mount, or some other bodge. By which time your head is so far off the stock you're shooting with your head up anyway. Then you realise that you cannot accurately zero the rifle as the increments are so large (2cm), then your limited to the fixed zoom or you have to buy a doubler (more expense). After that you discover that your illuminator is distinctly average and have to buy something better/ brighter in order to see owt.

 

Far better to have a system which can be swapped between rifles, has a good on-board illumination, is as good as the scope you attach it to but requires the same heads up position as a Pulsar anyway (but for half the cost).

 

My mate had to grind away the mount, ripped the rubber cups off the AV in/out when he cycled the bolt and found the ergonomics of the Pulsar to be laughable. All within the first week. Oh yes, and he finds it difficult to shoot anything over 80 yards from standard. Top draw that.

 

Hi,

 

Other than the remote cable fouling the rifle bolt which was easily cured, I've had no problems as such that you describe but must admit that I don't have a CZ. Yep it is 2cms at 100 yards giving a max of 1cm error at that distance but I've been fortunate enough to have never experienced that amount. Obviously, with a magnification level of 4.5, this was never designed for long range use - more suited to LR. However, when someone realised its potential and added a doubler to improve the mag, thereby extending the effective range, it also became obvious that additional illumination was required to keep pace. The unit itself cannot be faulted for this.

 

Having said that, it is neither the be all and end all nor all things to all people. As far as I'm aware, any 'conventional' NV sight that can accurately shoot out to in excess of 200 yards having first positively identified the target (absolutely no confusion between Reynard and the neighbour's moggy) is going to cost several £K.

 

Consequently, although at the more usual ranges there's no problem with the lamp, short ranges can be a problem even with a dimmer. Could I ask what it is that you use at less than £500 (that's the bit that I find attractive) that permits shots to be taken in an average dark no moon condition at 200 yards or a tad more with no external 'extras' while using the rifle as normal as this would also overcome the short range problem?

[happyshooter]

I agree with Mick Miller on this i still have a N550 but since ihave bought a NS200 i use the ns200

the most , its easy to transfer from gun to gun , it operates well to my ranges with rimfires, the onboard

led IR is good for 170 yds + , i found it easy to adapt to the shooting position , i have made a few mods to my ns200 if any

body requires any info pls pm me,

atb brian

[mick miller]

Well, when I say half the price I'm factoring in the doubler and laser/ IR lamp that needs to be added to the Pulsar to make it useable at distance. I can only feedback on my findings so far with the nitesite. I spent £600 on the unit, a further £90 on a Cobra/Merlin DSA and I already had a Li-Ion Deben battery hanging around that is stock mounted (it was used to drive my rifle mounted lamp). That's sub £700, I then bought a bit of Acetal rod and had a mate, bribed with wine, turn a sleeve I designed to perfectly fit the dsa and nitesite camera, however, that little tweak is not really necessary; its just a 'nice' thing to have and improves the picture through the dsa.

 

Anyhow, total cost £700. That allows me to identify rabbits out to 120 yards, head shoot them at 100 yards, spot foxes at 160-170 yards although I have yet to take a shot at one I don't doubt it would be absolutely fine and be on target if going for the boiler room. I'm using an MTC Genesis scope with side parallax and 20 times mag, and have used the set-up when there's been no moon other than a sliver, no problems.

 

It's not a plus 200 yard set up though, but the Pulsar certainly doesn't come close to it IMO.

[al4x]

Its just the watching your shooting on telly bit I couldn't get on with. To my mind the pulsar is for close quarters combat but then ideal if you can just observe and let things come in. 100 yards will get most foxes with patience. As ever the hardest thing is quarry id unless in a field it still can be hard to tell at range. The tally with my archer is mounting up but hell it takes some patience watching foxes in cover so you can be certain.

[steve_b_wales]

Well, when I say half the price I'm factoring in the doubler and laser/ IR lamp that needs to be added to the Pulsar to make it useable at distance. I can only feedback on my findings so far with the nitesite. I spent £600 on the unit, a further £90 on a Cobra/Merlin DSA and I already had a Li-Ion Deben battery hanging around that is stock mounted (it was used to drive my rifle mounted lamp). That's sub £700, I then bought a bit of Acetal rod and had a mate, bribed with wine, turn a sleeve I designed to perfectly fit the dsa and nitesite camera, however, that little tweak is not really necessary; its just a 'nice' thing to have and improves the picture through the dsa.

 

Anyhow, total cost £700. That allows me to identify rabbits out to 120 yards, head shoot them at 100 yards, spot foxes at 160-170 yards although I have yet to take a shot at one I don't doubt it would be absolutely fine and be on target if going for the boiler room. I'm using an MTC Genesis scope with side parallax and 20 times mag, and have used the set-up when there's been no moon other than a sliver, no problems.

 

It's not a plus 200 yard set up though, but the Pulsar certainly doesn't come close to it IMO.

 

I agree with Mick. My NS200 is quite capable of picking up rabbits at 100+ yards. I shot one the other night at 130 yards, and although it was'nt a head shot, it proved that I could have easily taken a fox at 200 yards, should one have presented itself.

I have'nt purchased a Cobra DSA yet, but will do in the near future.

 

Steve.

[mick miller]

Its just the watching your shooting on telly bit I couldn't get on with. To my mind the pulsar is for close quarters combat but then ideal if you can just observe and let things come in. 100 yards will get most foxes with patience. As ever the hardest thing is quarry id unless in a field it still can be hard to tell at range. The tally with my archer is mounting up but hell it takes some patience watching foxes in cover so you can be certain.

 

 

Yup, that's what I thought. But it took a few hours to adjust and then I was sold. It is a marmite set-up for sure, but I've ended up loving it.

[wymberley]

Well, when I say half the price I'm factoring in the doubler and laser/ IR lamp that needs to be added to the Pulsar to make it useable at distance. I can only feedback on my findings so far with the nitesite. I spent £600 on the unit, a further £90 on a Cobra/Merlin DSA and I already had a Li-Ion Deben battery hanging around that is stock mounted (it was used to drive my rifle mounted lamp). That's sub £700, I then bought a bit of Acetal rod and had a mate, bribed with wine, turn a sleeve I designed to perfectly fit the dsa and nitesite camera, however, that little tweak is not really necessary; its just a 'nice' thing to have and improves the picture through the dsa.

 

Anyhow, total cost £700. That allows me to identify rabbits out to 120 yards, head shoot them at 100 yards, spot foxes at 160-170 yards although I have yet to take a shot at one I don't doubt it would be absolutely fine and be on target if going for the boiler room. I'm using an MTC Genesis scope with side parallax and 20 times mag, and have used the set-up when there's been no moon other than a sliver, no problems.

 

It's not a plus 200 yard set up though, but the Pulsar certainly doesn't come close to it IMO.

 

Many thanks, that sounds interesting and is something to bear in mind. I take your point and agree with the £700 being a half - things do seem to add up!

 

The Pulsar came with a supplementary IR torch from which I took the Weaver mount and made an adaptor to suit a Clulite lamp sitting on top of the 550. Obviously, excluding the doubler unit, the additional cost so far having already got the lamp - nil. A visit to ebay for an IR sheet of perspex to be cut to fit the Clulite did add £10 but that completed the purchasing. This arrangement, even for my almost 70 year old eyes, still gives me 200 yards comfortably.

 

Stopped shooting the fox for a while now, concentrating on the rabbit with the 550 on the LR. But will have a look at your set up in a couple of months. Again, many thanks.

[al4x]

I think thats the main thing with all these, how well they work depends how much IR you use. By the time you've got a lamp or 170 on top as well then naturally you can see well. The firefly illuminator on mine works to 200 plus but is pencil sized