I have been looking at this scope and here are some pro's and con's as I see it.

Pro's:
Light for a 1-6X
Really well thought out reticle
Quality construction with great glass (correct me if I am wrong)
The entire reticle is illuminated

Con's:
Reticle not daylight bright  (Supposedly the reticle is large enough in the horseshoe to make this a non-issue)
Warranty is only 10 years from a small company

Why are they not more popular?  It seems like to get a well thought out BDC reticle the two choices are the ACSS and the GRSC.  To get a quality scope with the ACSS you have to purchase the PA 1-8X24 Platinum and it weighs 27oz which is a full 10 oz more.

It seems like this optic would be more popular.  Is there another scope that has a reticle as well thought out as the ACSS or GRSC built to similar quality levels that is light?

What am I missing?  Why is there not a lot of love for the GRSC 1-6X24?

Thanks for your input guys.

The GRSC 1-6x was the very first LPVO I purchased back around 2013. At 17 oz, and with the great M4-62 it was an attractive package. It is supposedly manufactured at LOW in Japan also (so I've been told). The price was decent for what it offered, but it priced itself out of a market where guys were either going to go cheap (sub $1K) or go high (north of $2K) at the time, or going with options in a similar price range, but with a proven track record. Overall it's a combination of several factors: a start-up without a proven track record, cost, limited warranty, and features that limited it's use to a niche group (read lack of a reticle options). I liked the optic overall. Optical quality was very good, but not the best in it's class, and the reticle design has been emulated without proper credit due to Ed Verdugo. I also liked the capped turrets and form factor. If the GRSC had been made and marketed by a well known optics manufacturer, I'm sure you'd see a lot more out there.  But newer LPVOs have saturated the market since then, and I think it will always be overlooked as a viable option as long as it has no dominant market presence and doesn't offer something unique at a more attractive price point.

I shot one in 3 gun for a year, worst scope I owned that was not a cheap Chinese knock off. I bought the GRSC because I wanted a 6 power scope to shot passed 300+ yards. Sold it bought a Razor HD when they came out. I still have the Razor, unless I spend way over $2000 there is no other scope I would buy.

I tested one.... I was impressed with virtually everything, but no daylight visible illumination makes it a non starter..

I like the 1-6x24 a lot.

I think it lends itself extremely well to a DM optic, with a lot of usable features for shooting at distance.

It would be perfect for close range with a center illuminated Fire Dot like on a Leupold or S&B.

I've been asking various optics manufacturers to offer the GRSC reticle, because their reticles for this type of scope fall short in most cases.

The ACSS reticles are obviously influenced by GRSC.

For a 3-gunner, there are other options with daylight-visible dots and simpler reticles for KD distances.

For UKD, the GRSC reticle really is a natural, intuitive system that I have not really seen anything else come close to.

For more open spaces like in the Western US or any desert environment, it's a superb combat optic.

I’ve always wanted to get my hands on one. Another that has sparked my interest is the C-More C3 1-6. The reticle is nice but it’s almost as heavy as the Razor

C-More C3

I'd very much prefer the Leupold Mk6 1-6x's 5.56 CMR-W reticle for that kind of reticle. To me, it's better designed. I also like that the Mk6 has locking turrets so you can add elevation without worrying about the turrets moving accidentally. With a Xmas tree reticle it might seem unnecessary but it can be handy to do so to engage smaller targets with the .5 MOA center dot on the Mk6 or to add a couple clicks of elevation to get the elevation hold to line up with the windage marks better instead of holding in space for both windage and elevation.

Daytime bright illumination in a FFP scope with a horseshoe type reticle is important for speed at 1x IMO. The difference between the Mk6 with daytime bright illumination and the Bushnell 1-6.5x FFP I had is pretty substantial.

The FOV spec is also not good, at only 98' @ 1x.

When speaking with Ed Verdugo on the phone several years ago about the evolution of his reticle design and how the GRSC came to be, he mentioned that he approached various optic companies for years before investing his own dime in producing his first 1-4x LPVO. IIRC he was campaigning to sell his reticle design to major company's with U.S. Optics and Leupold being among some of them.  At the time he was told that a 1-6x power scope was not something they were interested in producing because supposedly there was no real market for that power range. Nevertheless, Leupold ended up producing the Mark 6 and introduced the CMR-W reticle, which apparently was heavily influenced by Ed's reticle design.  At least that's how I remember it. Granted, Ed's reticle had the awesome head/circle ranging capability, which I thought was pretty neat, but was specifically designed for engaging human targets. At any rate, considering this was all mostly an individual effort by a former Special Forces team guy, I really wanted him and his company to be successful, improve on some of the shortcomings, and crank out more options. But it's another sad case of the little guy being crushed by big corporations with a lot more resources and dominating market presence.

akconvert,
 Good question.

First off, Blackfoot 7 and LRRPF52 thank you for your positive replies.

IMO there are several reasons for the lack of popularity of our scope. I think Blackfoot 7 gave a good assessment. I am the person behind the concept and development of 1-6 FFP Horseshoe reticle scope which was initially rejected by the optics industry. From the beginning the 1-6 CRS (Combat Rifle Scope) was intended to be a FSCO (Full

Spectrum Combat Optic) to help keep our war fighters alive in combat. As such when we met with owner of our Japanese manufacture we made it very clear to him and his team of engineers that this scope was intended to be used in real combat. They told us the scope would not be inexpensive but they liked the concept and were willing to

give it a try. This was after I had been turned down by the best American and European optics manufactures. The Japanese pulled it off and made for us the first successful 1-6 FFP reticle scope. As Blackfoot 7 explained the scope was introduced to the market at just over 1K from a unknown company with a 2 year warranty. Initially the scopes

sold well because we had a good product and we were the only kids on the block. Once the validity of the concept and reticle were proven many of the big companies that initially rejected my concept and reticle design came out with their versions of the 1-6 CRS with FFP Horseshoe reticles. They have a lot more money for advertising so they

have much better exposure with their products, plus they have a track record and name recognition.

That does not mean their products preform better.  In side by side testing at long range our CRS out performed other scopes (VCOG, Kahles 1-6, Bushnell 1-8, Burris 1-8, PA 1-8) with better glass, better illumination and more magnification. The main reason was the superior reticle design in the CRS. At close range the scopes/reticles were

pretty much on par with each other.

The Sig Tango 6 was made by the same manufacture that makes our scope but their Horseshoe reticle is not as efficient as the Horseshoe reticle in our CRS. Sig was just awarded a contract with the US Army for a version of the Tango 6 scope with a FFP Horseshoe reticle. I will be very interesting to see what reticle they put in that scope. I

hope it is at least as good as or better than my design. Anything less would be a disservice to our war fighters going in harms way.

I find it strange that the Army went with the Sig 1-6 because as I have already conceded there are other 1-6 and 1-8 scopes available that have better quality glass, better illumination and more magnification than our CRS 1-6 which I believe is on par with the Sig 1-6.  The Army must feel the Sig 1-6 will get the job done, they bought them.

Another big factor was the introduction of the <$500.00 1-6 scopes made in China. These scopes are not junk. The new breed of scopes being produced in China are much improved. I am currently developing a 1.1-10x30 made in China. CHINA???Yes, CHINA---again the American scope companies do not want to work to me.

akconvert, the bottom line is IMO my reticle design is the best thing out there (yes it is better than the ACSS reticle) for its intended purpose. I will admit if my reticle was in the Burris 1-8, the Bushnell 1-8, the PA 1-8,(all made by the same manufacture that makes our CRS) or maybe one of the new Nightforce 1-8s (haven't tried them yet) I

would probably retire my 1-6 CRS and replace it with one of those scopes. FYI I retired my ACOCs and replaced them with the 1-6 CRS.

I hope this helps answer your question.

Ed Verdugo

Heres your answer...

Thanks for the history lesson.  Reminds me of the color lcd / flat panel market in the early 1990's. Several US companies either saw a limited application or expected a quicker pay off from R&D, and we seen how that turned out.

I'm really intrigued with your development of a 1.1-10x30?

How is this coming along?

I just picked up an Nightforce 2.5-10x24 that I figured I would probably just end up looking through it and putting it back up on the equipment exchange here, but I am really digging this optic and its low light performance is nowhere near as bad as I thought it would be.

Low power to 10x variables seem to be the sweet spot for me .YMMV but whatever floats you boat. I'm not a war fighter everybody so please don't tell me that I'm going to die because I own this optic

That being said a 1.1-10x30 with your reticle in it would be the bomb!! I'm definitely rooting for you in getting something like this developed and it would be nice to see it take off and end up with some Japanese glass in it in the future.

I am seriously considering the purchase of your 1-6x but that damn $35 just to ship it is killing me!

This I find very interesting...

It seems like a good scope, but the lower FOV at 1x and the reticle being very busy were turn offs for me.

I want a ranging reticle, but I think other players have designed better reticles for this purpose.

That said, it is a nice scope and the reticle is useful.

Curious what ranging reticles you think are better designed and more useful ?

I think designs like the ACSS (platnium variants), ATACR, and Leupolds CMR-W give you pretty much all the same capabilities and don’t come off looking as cluttered but that’s my opinion.

For what it's worth, I went through several different optics before I came to purchase a GRSC 1-6x.
Briefly, here's the story.

All the optics (below) were run on my 16"/5.56 carbine. I did all my evaluating and testing from 50 yards, out to about 1,000 yards over the past 10 years.

First, I ran an ACOG TA11 for a few years. Great scope, but I wanted more flexibility.
I then purchased my first LPVO - a GRSC 1-4x that I came to really like. I could hit steel faster and more consistently than my ACOG TA11.
Next, purchased a Primary Arms 1-8x Platinum. Good scope overall. I liked the extra 2x, it seems to be built well and it was affordable.

I've been running my PA 1-8x for a while now, but I have concluded that I am hitting (unknown and known distance) targets quicker and more consistently with my GRSC 1-6x. Turns out that I found the GRSC's reticle was easier for me to locate, range and acquire hits more frequently. I was also able to test them all side by side with NVD's. I am still favoring the GRSC because I found that their reticle works the best for me.

Hope this helps.

I've begged for companies to put the GRSC reticle into their scopes for years.

Instead, they say, "Have you seen our [insert failed knock-off of the GRSC] design with XYZ reticle?  We feel this is better!"

Yes, I have seen the reticles that are the only deal-breakers for why I won't buy your scopes.

I don't like or have use for them after seeing what the CRS reticle does, and even without the CRS, they're either such a bad design that you have to dial (kind of a killing point for a LPVO), or the stadia are so worthless that they such for both trajectory and especially windage.  Most of them don't even have windage, and instead, have smaller hashes/windage bars as the distance increases because someone (who has never shot at distance in the wind it seems), thought that using the stadia elevation bars for range estimation was a great idea by making them correspondingly smaller.

What if you had a reticle that had intuitive ranging, trajectory, and wind holds built into it, as well as movers?

Oh wait, that's been available for well over a decade now, is fully able to be licensed at a negligible fee, but the big optics companies who make the best scopes, as well as the economical options that are out there (that don't break), still don't have the CRS reticle in their scopes.

I'm still left with a circle or doughnut that is either mixed with a mil or MOA hash reticle, or a useless stadia.

This isn't rocket science folks.  License the reticle, put it in your excellent scopes, watch sales increase.