Background:
So I recently built a lighter weight rifle for my gf consisting of a 16" Bushy superlight barrel, 12" JP/VTAC, std upper/lower, modstock, BCM BCG etc etc. The next question was what optic? She prefers magnification rather than irons and she likes my XTR-14 on my Recce. I wasn't all about dropping nearly $800 for another LT/XTR combo since her gun is supposed to be a budget-minded build.

I had a Konus M30 1-4x but it "fish-eyed" around the edges. Considering the price I might have been willing to deal with some "fish-eye" but it was more than I'd like. It probably wouldn't have bothered my gf, but it would bother me. So I sold the Konus.
I thought about the Weaver V3 but for not much more I could get a 30mm tube, 4x, a BDC, and illumination.
I'm not a fan of the DMS-1 based upon some of the reviews I've read and their past mold issues. In addition I prefer horseshoe reticle to the DMS-1's doughnut reticle.
After doing as much reading up as possible I finally decided to order her a CMR 1-4x24 that will be mounted in a Primary Arms Deluxe mount(don't plan on running BUIS). I ordered the scope from Midway and was lucky enough to find a coupon for $25 off!

For those who are unfamiliar with the two scopes:
XTR-14 @ SWFA


CMR 1-4x24 @ SWFA & CMR 1-4x24 @ Midway



Initial impressions:
My order from Midway arrived in only 3 days via UPS Basic which was faster than I expected. The scope was well packed and also included in the box was: a set of flip up lens caps (not BC's but decent enough), micro fiber cloth, 2 CR2032 batteries (1 extra), and adjustment wrench for zero-lock system. The battery installed easily under the twist off cap. The illumination can be turned either way from NV(1)-11. I tested the green illumination indoors and out; it is very bright indoors but barely visible outdoors. I like the reticle, though the stadia are kind of thin. The intersections of the BDC hash marks on the verticle stadia are left out which I think might be good for ID'ing targets at distance but is also a part of the ranging reticle. The horizontal holdover lines represent 19" at the labeled distance (200-900m). The knobs are easy to turn, adjustments are audible, and have a little play but definitely acceptable IMO. The magnification adjustment ring is smooth and firm to adjust. One plus is that the adjustment ring has a raised area like a pho-"cat-tail." The glass is very clear and has no distortion edge to edge! I am able to see details at a distance easily. It is not a true 1x but probably a 1.1x.

Comparison:
While looking at a few different surfaces outside, I could see the illumination equally well with each scope, albeit not very good. I don't have a need or desire for outdoors illumination since on both my XTR and CMR the black reticle is easily visible. The CMR illuminates green the horseshoe and 1moa center dot; The XTR illuminates red the horseshoe, center 1moa, 200yd 1/2moa, and 300yd 1moa dots. As the measurements that I took below show, the CMR is about an inch shorter and marginally lighter. Both fit on a flat top with MBUS or Troy rears while in LT mounts. Thankfully I had one LT-139 and one LT-104, perfect for XTR and CMR respectively. The CMR w/ rear flip up lens cover will fit with a rear MBUS though you don't have more than a paper's width to spare.

The exit pupil is much better on the XTR and one of the few "cons" I can find with the CMR. I've seen some worse but it is definitely not the CMR's strong suit. If Leatherwood could fix the exit pupil this scope could easily sell for double the price; at least I'd trade my XTR for it. The biggest surprise to me was the clarity of the Chinese-made (oh no!!!) CMR; it is most definitely clearer and brighter than the XTR! I was so shocked by it I had my gf look at the two, without saying anything to influence her, and she picked the CMR as well as being much brighter. We looked at a few cars at roughly 50 and 75yds, and switching between the two scopes there was a huge difference in the vividness of the colors(purple and red) of the cars. I also looked at points on an iron fence at about 75yds and was able to see the details in the fence a bit clearer with the CMR than the XTR.

Using the scopes on 1x there is a big difference. Eye relief on both seems to stay pretty consistent from 1x-4x. I'm not sure what the technical term for this would be but I believe it is related to the exit pupil... With the CMR you cannot move your head much side-to-side or front-to-back, maybe 3/4" forward or rearward of ideal position. With the XTR I can move my head forward or rearward about 2" of  the ideal position while retaining full picture and not getting that tunnel vision look... It is also much easier to pick up the rifle and acquire a target. The slightly thicker horseshoe and much thicker stadia of the XTR reticle also make it easier to use quickly on 1x. On 4x the two scopes seem pretty darn close as far as exit pupil, and SWFA's specification of 6mm for both supports that. Adjusting the magnification on each takes about the same amount of effort but is slightly gritty on the XTR in comparison. To turn the XTR from 1x to 4x requires the eyepiece be turned about 178deg whereas the CMR requires about a 210degree turn.

There is a low light comparison at the bottom of this page.

Conclusion:
Bottom line, based on my initial impression, I'm very happy with my $234 purchase... It's a keeper and perfect for my gf's rifle. I do not think it'd be a great scope for 3-gun or any type of run-n-gun activity if you are not consistent with your cheekweld/head positioning. I tend to have pretty consistent head positioning with the modstock on my new build and the SOPMOD on my Recce which is why it's not a "deal breaker." If it had the exit pupil of my XTR I'd dump the XTR in a heartbeat because it's a little smaller, I like the ranging reticle (set up for 62gr .223 or 168gr .308), and the clarity/brightness is excellent. As of now I'm still going to hold out for the new Vortex Viper PST to see if it is worthy of replacing my beloved XTR.

I'm planning on going to the range Tuesday to get some trigger time behind the CMR. I'm sorry but I'm horrible with reticle pictures so you'll have to take my word on the clarity. Any input on particular tests or test methods to try for comparison's sake? I'll likely be limited to 100yds, unfortunately. See update #2 in post below. I will have the CMR in a spare LT-104 for the sake of testing on an even playing field, though it may live its life in the above mentioned PA mount.

Bottom pg. 1 - Low light comparison

Middle pg. 2 - Ballistics data chart for reticle











Reticle 4x, purple car approx 50yds:
The pics aren't the greatest but accurately represent the relative difference between glass. I wasn't able to get my old 'point & shoot' to focus on the reticles. The XTR looks a little cloudier in the pic than it really is.

XTR


CMR


Tech Specs:

CMR
Weight - 16.5oz (SWFA); 1lb 8oz w/ LT-104
Eye relief - 3 7/8"
Lenth 10.0"
Knobs - 0.70" high
Ring area behind knobs - 2.04"
Ring area in front of knobs - 3.00"
Eyepiece - 1.62"
Objective - 1.18" (30mm)
Exit Pupil - 11.1mm - 6mm (SWFA)
Made in China(PRC)

XTR
Weight - 17oz (SWFA); 1lb 7.4oz w/ LT-139
Eye relief - 4 13/16" -
Lenth 11.2"
Knobs - 0.39" high
Ring area behind knobs - 2.40"
Ring area in front of knobs - 3.65"
Eyepiece - 1.66"
Objective - 1.18" (30mm)
Exit Pupil - 24mm - 6mm (SWFA)
Made in USA


DISCLAIMER: I am no optics expert by any means. These are just my observations as best as I can describe them. Those of you who may be more knowledgeable when it comes to optics, feel free to correct me in a constructive manner and I will edit the post.

I'm making little edits here and there for both readability and additional info but nothing groundbreaking.

A very nicely done review.

Thank you for putting in the effort.

another, thanks for the review

Excellent work!!!


I'm stunned at the optical quality.  The DMS doesn't compare, but your comparison to the XTR is surprising. The mandatory proper head position does suck a little, but I've found that you're right, with a good stock it is pretty manageable. I've got an ACS stock on my rifle. You have to wonder if the tiny exit pupil was a cheap way to get the image so bright with Chi-com glass. I can't wait for reticle pics in part II (hint, hint).

ETA- I love that the supplied caps fold almost all the way back too.

Thanks for the review, will be ordering one next week!!

ARKAR

Do you have any pics of the Leatherwood mounted?

Thanks

nice review..+1 for the XTR

Ask and thou shalt receive...


ETA: Current form that balances much better



UPDATE: reticle pics added in OP

nice setup

Thanks! My gf likes it which means I can now reclaim my 14.5" LMT

NICE WRITE UP!

Thanks

Update:
I did get it out to the range but didn't run it through many tests. Some quick observations:
It was very easy to zero, only took 6 shots.
Illumination was useless in 95deg sun w/ few clouds.
It was easy to keep a good sight picture and rounds on target while quickly unloading 10rds into an enemy watermelon at 25yds on 1x w/ both eyes open

The range trip has not changed my opinion of the scope one bit either way; It will remain atop my gf's rifle pictured above.

jerz,

I see that the clarity of the two scopes are pretty close in your pictures but I have another concern.  The specs on the XTR is 95% light transmission and if I'm right the CMR is around 91%.  My question is can you compare the two scopes in extreme low light conditions and see if one shines brighter than the other.  My dad has an XTR that is awesome, and I am in need of a scope for my 6.8 upper for hunting.  I'm just not sure I want to drop $500+ on a scope for it as it is kind of a secondary hunting rifle.

Thanks man

I thought the CMR was a pretty good scope also. I had one and just sold it ONLY because I needed more X power. It shot dead on and hated to let it but I went up to a 2.5X8X36. Here's a pic of a roof top at exactly 349 yards. You know I should have kept just in case I ever built/got another rifle. I really liked that scope.

The difference in brightness is actually greater than the pictures show. I am no photographer nor do I have a high grade SLR (just a 5yo cannon point & shoot).

I will try to give you an idea of brightness in low light tomorrow evening but don't be surprised if I'm not able to get any pictures. I'll try to do a comparison every hour for a few hours to see if there is a point where the XTR becomes brighter.

Pictures are not a deal breaker so don't kill yourself over it.  I'm mainly concerned with right at dark when you really need good glass for those last few minutes of killin time.  Thanks, and I look forward for the info.

Does the CMR's magnification ring have to turn to a position where it would interfere with the weapons rail?  I ask because it has that nice knob on it, but I'm looking to mount it on an FAL, so I would be putting it in the lowest rings possible.

It will be difficult for pictures to tell the real story, even with a nice SLR camera.  What is your opinion/experience of the low light performance of the two.  I have a Burris XTR, so I will have a reference point.

I've used mine in low light and I had no trouble. If it gets dark enough you can't see your deer through that scope, you're out WAY after legal shooting hours. We get 30min before sunrise and after sunset. After that, no can hunt large furry things legally.

Forgot to do the observation tonight sorry guys. I'll put it in my phone so that I remember tomorrow.

Ha ha.  No problem man.

No the magnification ring does not interfere with the mounts, it stays on the top half of the scope.

Thanks.



 

The low light glass of the Leatherwood is pretty nice, but I dont have the Burris to compare it too.

I took mine out hog hunting the other night from like 8-12pm, it was pretty much a full moon and I was setup in a field but I could easily see the feeder 30 yards away and with the reticle setting on nightvision I had no problem with it being too bright and washing out the image.  I told my partner that there would be no need to spotlight them tonight because I could see so well with the new scope.  Unfortunately the piggies did not decide to cooperate.

I tested the 2 scopes at 7:15pm as the sun was beginning to set, 8:00pm as the sun was just about completely set, and 9pm when it was completely dark. I tested each at 1x and 4x but didn't see much difference. My "target" was a light colored building roughly 120yds away.

7:15pm - The XTR and CMR were pretty much the same as my review.... XTR wasn't quite as clear as the CMR nor were colors as vibrant.

8:00pm - This is when the difference became pretty clear... The CMR still had better clarity but when looking at the two side by side the XTR was definitely a little brighter. I would say that it was about 15% brighter than the CMR, nothing crazy but noticable.

Added 9/3- 8:30pm - Since 9pm was a little too late yesterday I tried 8:30pm today. I looked at the same area but picked out a grassy area that was slighltly lighted and faded to near complete darkness by the base of a tree. I was able to see close to the base of the tree with the XTR than with the CMR. One other thing I forgot to mention last night is how crucial the illumination is in the ability to pick up the reticle properly. Since the exit pupil is much smaller on the CMR it's a little tougher to quickly acquire your target, but this is something I mentioned in the original comparison. I again noticed how much more my eyes seem to like the green illumination in low light.

9:00pm - It was a little dark to really test at this point. I probably should've tested at 8:30pm. Both scopes were pretty dark at this point but looking at lighted areas (not directly at the lights) the XTR clearly had better light transmission, I'd say to the same degree seen at 8:00pm.

Bottom line:
If I were concerned with low light use or night time hog hunting the XTR would be my choice for sure. I liked the CMR's green illumination (brightness level 4) better in low light than the XTR's red, but that is just preference. Neither scope's illumination washed out the view. I find it interesting how much brighter everything looks during the day light through the CMR yet night time is a little different story.

jerz_subbie,

First let me say thanks for doing the comparison for us, lots of good info in this thread.  The results are pretty much what I expected with the XTR being brighter in low light.  In my opinion thats where more expensive optics really excel.  I am surprised that the CMR was still more vibrant and clearer as you say in low light.  For my needs either one of these scope will probably work great which has me more confused than ever.  I guess the only way I'm really going to be able to tell if the CMR is clear enough is if I buy the thing and use it.  Thanks again for the review.

Thanks for the kind words, RFutch, and you're welcome! I'm glad I'm not in your position, having to choose between the two haha. If the $300 in your pocket is important I don't think you'd be disappointed in the CMR(be sure to order from Midway and use a $25 off coupon code) but if you are you should be able to quickly sell it for a very small lose.

$25 off coupon?

Where?

I'm pretty sure the one I used is in my OP but it's likely expired now. Just got an email a few days ago:

259110 = $25 off $250 exp 9/8
There are similar codes for 10 off 100 and 50 off 500, just replace the "25" in the coupon code.

excellent review and followup jerz_subbie

Not that I'm not already confused enough but did you guys see this

Thank you!!

Excellent thread, as I was just about to post about the CMR.  I have 3 fullfield II scopes at the moment, but am wanting something more compact and the CMR has caught my attention.

[question about the leatherwood cmr]
On the spec page is the numbers on the lower reticle in mil or moa?  
For example, the 5 and 8 - are these moa or mil?  What about the other tick marks on the lower reticle?

They are BDC hold overs.

From SWFA:

Ok, If I am reading you right, the numbers 5 and 8 are yardage indicators for holdover, instead of mil or moa, is that correct?

I just pulled out my manual to confirm and they are actually meters. Since you questioned the 5 and 8...

Assuming a .223 62gr round (similar values for .308 168gr)
500m holdover = 12.25 MOA = 3.5 MIL
800m holdover = 32.75 MOA = 9.5 MIL see below for correct data

If it'll help anyone out I'll post the entire chart for .223 & .308, just let me know. ETA: Will do tonight as per SandsHillBilly's request

Please do I looked at that chart earlier and tried to reason it with the reticle and I got lost on my warped head.
 

By request of SandHillsHillbilly, the "ballistic data compare chart" from the CMR manual



I misspoke in my previous post, the vertical holdover values are all the way to the right. The chart gives examples of 62gr .223 and 168gr .308 loads but your specific load will vary.

Now let me see if I understand it right the circle is 5 mils so that would be out around 600m right



Forgot to account for radius not diameter. So bottom of 5 mil circle will be about 450 meters???
 

Pretty close.... I think you got 450m by taking (400m/2.22MIL)*2.5MIL = 450.45m but the trajectory is not linear so a simple calculation like that isn't ideal; it gets worse at longer ranges. Looking at the reticle gives you a pretty good idea and looks to be just over 400m. By my calculations the bottom of the 5MIL circle(2.5MIL) should be around 410m. Sorry to sound like I'm knit-picking

Okay I just got this scope and understand the reticle but being new to the scope world, I'm lost when it comes to the ballistic chart for this scope.  Please help me understand the different hold over values and all the other MIL/MOA numbers for each range.  Sorry for the newb question but I've being trying to figure it out and now my brain hurts!!

You really don't need to get caught up in the mil/moa stuff unless you're trying to use the reticle with a round significantly different than what it's setup for. If you're using it on a .223/5.56 AR and zero it at 100m(yards will work too) you should be pretty darn close ("minute of man" or better) once you stretch it out to 200+.

I have had my CMR for a few months now and love the glass.  My only problem is that the illumination knob turns to easily.  Even just carrying the gun around in my soft case, I will sometimes turn the illumination on and run the batteries out.  Anyone else have this problem?

I haven't had that issue with my illumination knob and that rifle lives in a double rifle soft case (so it's rather tight in there) and is moved around often. My knob is firm, as it should be. Maybe this can be a test of Leatherwood's CS, try asking them if they have any solutions.

Well I just emailed them so I will let you all know what they say

The only thing found with my CMR was I destroyed  the rubber/silicon washers in the turret caps pretty quickly. I found that if you don't tighten them, there is unacceptable play in the turrets and you can easily go past the zero stop and lose your setting, but if you tighten them you destroy the washers.
This has relegated it to my dedicated .22 AR rather than the .223 I had hoped to put it on. I am otherwise pleased with it, particularly the clear glass ad the reticle is growing on me. I was a little dubious about the horseshoe but it is not a thick/heavy profile at all.

I haven't taken apart my turrets, but do you think that replacing that washer with say a brass washer would solve the issue?

I haven't looked at it that closely yet although I am considering something similar. I want to be sure that I use the right profile washer rather than just jam something in there. Also I don't know whether the originals provided weatherproofing......

Gotcha. Well let me know what you discover, whether it be via PM or in this thread. It can't hurt to know how to solve an issue I may have down the line.

jerz_subbie - thanks again for the review info.  Im really interested in this scope.  Dont care for illuminated optics, but the ability to dial in extra windage and elevation correction is a plus.  The Burris fullfield I have now with the ballisticplex reticle has exceptional glass, but the holdover points are only "close", which at 500 yards just isnt cutting it for me.  All three are probably going up for sale soon. One other thing I like about the CMR over the XTR is the holdover points are marked.  My only concern is the several issues with the illumination knob ive heard here and on other forums, but dont think its a deal breaker for me.

I like what I see so far:
True, 223 holdover points, clearly marked on the reticule
Compact
Range finding reticule


Does the elevation turret rotate more than one revolution?  I hope not, so as not to "loose" your place.

After the initial zeroing , it does not.  The CMR has the ZRO-LOK turret system that allows only one rotation.  Before zeroing the CMR there are two screws on each turret that you loosen.  Zero the CMR and tighten the screws and you are done.