Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 11/1/2003 6:26:03 PM EDT
I'm considering getting one. I hunt Coyotes in wooded areas and this seems like the perfect sight for this (a red-dot wouldn't suit my purpose here). Are there any disadvantages to this sight? Would you buy it again?
Link Posted: 11/1/2003 6:45:49 PM EDT
Exposed to the elements controls, obsolete WW1 tech. Wing nuts unwind, 3 times the wt. of an ACOG, eye relief sucks. Bad shootin, Jack
Link Posted: 11/1/2003 7:09:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/1/2003 8:21:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/3/2003 3:53:13 AM EDT by Chuck]
I've had the opportunity to use both the TA01NSN (Trijicon) and the M79 (ELCAN) and have a strong preference for the ELCAN. Eye relief is the same or longer than the TA01NSN and the WW1 controls don't need to be adjusted once the rifle is zeroed unless you're shooting very long distances -- and long distance shooting is beyond the realm of the M16/AR15 system for fleeting targets. I prefer the simple post sight reticle of the ELCAN to the overly busy -- and small -- reticle of the TA01. I find it easier to hold the rifle level with the ELCAN vs. the TA01. Low light shooting is very nice with the ELCAN, it's been called the poor mans NVD. An exaggeration for sure, but it does gather a lot of light. Here's mine on a lightweight Dissipator. [url="http://www.hunt101.com/?p=68425&c=500&z=1"][img]http://www.hunt101.com/img/068425.jpg[/img][/url] [Photo link fixed.] -- Chuck
Link Posted: 11/1/2003 8:35:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/1/2003 10:08:29 PM EDT by VICAP]
Since it's calibrated for the 65gr 5.56, and the 5.56 was designed to shoot from a 20' bbl, is it adjustable for use on a 16' M4? Thanks for the help.
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 6:00:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Chuck: I've had the opportunity to use both the TA01NSN (Trijicon) and the M79 (ELCAN) and have a strong preference for the ELCAN. Eye relief is the same or longer than the TA01NSN and the WW1 controls don't need to be adjusted once the rifle is zeroed unless you're shooting very long distances -- and long distance shooting is beyond the realm of the M16/AR15 system for fleeting targets. I prefer the simple post sight reticle of the ELCAN to the overly busy -- and small -- reticle of the TA01. I find it easier to hold the rifle level with the ELCAN vs. the TA01. Low light shooting is very nice with the ELCAN, it's been called the poor mans NVD. An exaggeration for sure, but it does gather a lot of light. -- Chuck
View Quote
I am with Chuck, even though I have to shoot ACOG's all the time at work (KAC). Not to say some users prefer one over another, but what's new about that? My primary optic has been an Elcan for 10years+ and the thing still even works at night. I have also fired sub-MOA groups with this scope. And since its "external" elevation adjustment are very, very similar to that of the M16A2's rear sight that I am very familiar with, I find I like this similarity as well when under competitive stress, where the overly busy ACOG reticle requires me to pause too much. So considering I am just a civilian shooter these days, Elcan works fine for me. My advice, try both if you can, and pick the one you like. Don't be swayed by folks with hidden agendas.
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 6:36:03 AM EDT
I don't think anyone can deny that the wt. is terribley heavy. That the US troops testing at Ft. Bragg and Benning did not like the Elcan on thier M16/M4's for a lot of valid reasons, and turned it down. The light gathering is a myth as any eye doctor will tell you that your eye can absorb only so much light no matter how great the glass might be, so at night time it is no better than any other optic. Mud and dirt get into the exposed old fashion controls, and forget trying to keep them clean. Jack
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 6:49:29 AM EDT
Hahaha, I was going to respond and tell you how I knew Chuck and coldblue really like them! Guess there's no need for that. Some folks find the crosshair reticle in the TAO1 busy. I cant seem to figure out why, but I wouldnt argue the point with them. Even if some folks dont like the TAO1 reticle, ACOGs are available with much simpler and in my opinion, better reticles than the TAO1 series. In my opinion, ACOGs are overall, much superior to Elcans and I wouldnt let the cross hair reticles of the TAO1 series sway me towrds an optic I find overly bulky, very heavy with poor adjustments and en even worse mount. I'd just get an ACOG with a "simpler" reticle.
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 7:38:13 AM EDT
Light gathering is certainly no myth. Larger entrance optical diameter will gather more light. Exit pupil pretty much defines brightness. How much light your eye can use in daylight will be darn near the same with or without optics, but in dim light at dawn, dusk, or forests the ability of the optics to gather and pass light is how we see. -- Chuck
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 9:18:51 AM EDT
I use an Elcan for service shooting here in Canada and think that it is great for that. I have no experence with it in a true combat setting but for anything else I'll happy give it the tumbs up.
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 12:46:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 3rdtk: I don't think anyone can deny that the wt. is terribley heavy. That the US troops testing at Ft. Bragg and Benning did not like the Elcan on thier M16/M4's for a lot of valid reasons, and turned it down. The light gathering is a myth as any eye doctor will tell you that your eye can absorb only so much light no matter how great the glass might be, so at night time it is no better than any other optic. Mud and dirt get into the exposed old fashion controls, and forget trying to keep them clean. Jack
View Quote
Dick needs to come up to speed here. Just about every M249 SAW & M240 MAchine Gun in the Army NOW has an Elcan on it. I mean every picture I saw from Iraq had one mounted...except (of course) none had Dick's Throw Lever mount. I wonder if Elcan had picked his "dimension unforgiving" mount way back when they started dating, how much he would love it now, instead of trashing it every chance he gets. Just like EOTech's...no ARMS mount...so he hoses it at every opportunity. Another example, there'e "bad blood" with GG&G, so their stuff gets "bad shooten jack's" drip every time. Same must be true of RRA, as they get the "negative Ned" treatment as well. Hey Dick, were not talking about defending America (like the Elcan Mounted M249's & M240's are doing as we speak) were talking Coyotes...
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 6:47:16 PM EDT
COLDBLUE NEEDS TO GET A NEW LINE OF BS BESIDES HIS SELFENGRANDISMENTS, ETC> Most anyone is fully aware of M249's,240's, having had Elcans pushed on to those weapons. I and the others were speaking of putting your (financial?) Elcan interests on M16/M4's, there is a differance. As for GGG, I brought out the facts of what happened in court as publically published and well known by those that have been in the community only a very few years, and in response to the topic of the discussion. Why a certain person doesn't contribute instead of attacking someone and the facts is typical of his ineptness of facing published facts that he doesn't deny, just doesn't like. Jack
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 6:59:11 PM EDT
Well I must admit having lousy luck with the CF C79 Elcans. However when the mount is good they are great. I have 1 civilian 4th gen model on a 20" AR of mine. I get great groups and the reticle is easy to use on the KD. [img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=2949[/img] I use one at work when I have to - otherwise I prefer the TA31, but respect Dave and Chuck for their opinions.
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 7:19:56 PM EDT
I've got one and like it very much....I find it very easy to shoot well with and although heavy the weight really isn't an issue for me...right now Ive got it mounted on an M4 flattop...just my .02
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 7:39:49 PM EDT
I bought a buggered up ex Canadian ELCAN at the last Tulsa show. The mount has about 10 MOA of slop in it. Have been told the newer Gen4 mount was a big improvment, but it will work loose over time. Seems to me the ELCAN would be great for light range work, or where some play in the sight won't be a problem, like with a area fire weapon such as a M249 or a M240.
Link Posted: 11/3/2003 3:32:20 AM EDT
Exactly Jack
Link Posted: 11/3/2003 5:51:02 AM EDT
3rdtk: The light gathering is a myth as any eye doctor will tell you that your eye can absorb only so much light no matter how great the glass might be, so at night time it is no better than any other optic.
View Quote
Chuck: Light gathering is certainly no myth. Larger entrance optical diameter will gather more light. Exit pupil pretty much defines brightness. How much light your eye can use in daylight will be darn near the same with or without optics, but in dim light at dawn, dusk, or forests the ability of the optics to gather and pass light is how we see.
View Quote
Just to clarify, since both 3rdtk and Chuck have valid points here, the human eye will dilate to a maximum of around 8mm in total darkness (actually more like 7 and change). Once the exit pupil reaches 8mm (which the ELCAN and all full-size ACOGs do), they gather light more effectively than the human eye does even in total darkness. So in darkness, a 3.5x ACOG with 10mm exit pupil will look just as bright as an ELCAN with a 8.5mm exit pupil which will be no brighter than a 4x ACOG with 8mm exit pupil. At that point the only advantage of the larger exit pupil is it lets you move your head a little more without losing the full image.
Link Posted: 11/3/2003 6:08:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By coldblue:
Originally Posted By 3rdtk: I don't think anyone can deny that the wt. is terribley heavy. That the US troops testing at Ft. Bragg and Benning did not like the Elcan on thier M16/M4's for a lot of valid reasons, and turned it down. The light gathering is a myth as any eye doctor will tell you that your eye can absorb only so much light no matter how great the glass might be, so at night time it is no better than any other optic. Mud and dirt get into the exposed old fashion controls, and forget trying to keep them clean. Jack
View Quote
Dick needs to come up to speed here. Just about every M249 SAW & M240 MAchine Gun in the Army NOW has an Elcan on it. I mean every picture I saw from Iraq had one mounted...except (of course) none had Dick's Throw Lever mount. I wonder if Elcan had picked his "dimension unforgiving" mount way back when they started dating, how much he would love it now, instead of trashing it every chance he gets. Just like EOTech's...no ARMS mount...so he hoses it at every opportunity. Another example, there'e "bad blood" with GG&G, so their stuff gets "bad shooten jack's" drip every time. Same must be true of RRA, as they get the "negative Ned" treatment as well. Hey Dick, were not talking about defending America (like the Elcan Mounted M249's & M240's are doing as we speak) were talking Coyotes...
View Quote
ruh roh, Rorge. useful information indeed.
Link Posted: 11/3/2003 1:49:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/3/2003 1:50:52 PM EDT by Submariner]
Well I must admit having lousy luck with the CF C79 Elcans. However when the mount is good they are great. I have 1 civilian 4th gen model on a 20" AR of mine. I get great groups and the reticle is easy to use on the KD.
View Quote
I have been following the Elcan/Trijicon debate here for a couple of years and this is the first time I recall Kevin B. saying anything good about Elcans. His articulate opinions almost kept me from following Chuck's suggestion way back that I try the Elcan. Glad to see Kevin is G2G on the fourth gen. mount. Too bad his employers couldn't buy them for their forces. For me, my eyes are getting older and the simple, less cluttered reticule makes it easier to use. That I bought some at $450 or less doesn't hurt, either. Having said all this, most times I have an Aimpoint on my flat top. As Pat rogers says, "We live in a 300 meter world." Aimpoints work out to 300 meters, provided you can see the target. Inside 50 meters, neither Elcans nor comparable Trijicons are particularly useful, IMHO.
Link Posted: 11/3/2003 2:32:24 PM EDT
I clearly said M16/M4's, for which Coldblue must have ignored before attacking someone that isn't even here to defend himself from the consistant personal BS. Coldblue needs to be brought up to speed, right now I can see that he is dillusional thru hatred of one of his obvious main competatives. This is the AR15 forum for which the discussion is relevant to, not M240's/249's as they were not the issue in my observation and presentation of the historical, documented facts, not just my opinion. I thougt everyone here had a right to an opinion and observation, evidently Coldblue says I can't if he doesn't like it. It is strange that Coldblue, time and again, only makes up false personal attacks at 3dtk observations or facts, even if someone else or many others have the same observation or fact. If I was representing a particular company that wanted to sell a product to another, I wouldn't be answering members product questions with the candor I have if I wanted to court thier business, so Coldblue is wrong there too, and I'm selling nothing. I do not make personal attacks, but will return fire if Coldblue want's to throw more rediculas poisoness attacks at me. LIGHT GAIN. Light gain beyond what the human eye can see is usless in a day optic, is what I was reffering and thought that was clear. Light gain beyond what we can absorb with our eye, is then only usefull if your using a NV device, as they can use all the ambient light you can get to it at night. ie, A day optic with extra light gain glass doesn't help beyond what our eye can absorb. Good shootin, Jack
Link Posted: 11/3/2003 2:53:33 PM EDT
Submariner, I did qualify my remarks... The CF has now adopted the 4th gen mount [img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=18161[/img] On rifle team my scores with the C79 are higher than they are with the ACOG. I find the tip of the reticle a very precise aiming mark. Furthermore leaving the gate open you can use the scope like a 1 MOA Sniper Scope and use individual range comeups that are specific to you, your rifle and ammo combo. However for duty usage I chose the ACOG, for there are particular times when you just cant run back to the weapon's truck and get a new scope... I have had the C79 fail in the field to often for me to entrust my life and buddies to it.
Link Posted: 11/3/2003 3:47:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KevinB: I have had the C79 fail in the field to often for me to entrust my life and buddies to it.
View Quote
We're talking about the mount here right? Not the scope... All of this info has been valuable to me, especially when it comes from those who have actually employed it in the field. Thanks again guys. ViCAP
Link Posted: 11/3/2003 4:18:24 PM EDT
VICAP Yes, it has always been the bigest problem amoungst the overall excesive wt. and the controls getting exposed to the elements and getting jambed up. The glass is very good, but what the negatives are what off set it as far as I am concerned and what has been reported by various military evaluations. Jack
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 6:04:10 AM EDT
How is the new "U.S. Army" torque knob mount? Is that incorporated into the 4th generation mount? I've been looking at the M145 w/M4 reticle for awhile.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 11:40:31 AM EDT
Top Top