AR Sponsor
Posted: 7/22/2005 1:14:56 PM EDT
|
I've done a metric crapton of reading, but still find this a difficult choice. I love the wide FOV and larger objective on the Elcan, but the weight is something of a turnoff. Has anyone out there used both? I know there are a lot of ACOG fans out there... |
| I currently or have used both. On my first issue M4 I had a TA01 ACOG, now I have a EoTech, and on my former M240 I had a M145. I perfer the ACOG, don't like the M145. It has less magnifaction power, has more weight, breaks more often than the ACOG's, is really wide. |
I love my two Elcan's (had one for over 15 years). But I have not deployed with them as Kevin has, nor have I observed (as he has) how they hold up (or not) in a regular Soldier's environment. But on my range and walk-around AR's, the Elcan is all you need as a civilian or LE (IMHO). I also have two ACOG's and they perform just as well for me, but I don't like the busy reticle, I seem to be always using the wrong intersection. But part of that is my using other scopes with other reticles all the time. I think if all I was trained-on was the ACOG, I would be fine with it. However, being somewhat resposible for the M16A2 rear sight design, I relate very well to the Elcan's external Elevation adjustmet and more simple reticle. An example of what I mean is that the onlt semi-auto handguns I have anymore are Glocks. Once I went to a couple of schools with my Model 19 years ago, I didn't think I was safe anymore with my 1911's, Smith's, etc. So everything but the Glock was sold so I would not dilute the muscle memory one develops with a handgun they use in the very intensive school type training. And that was after carrying a 1911 for 20+ years in the Marine Corps. I do know, however, that on the SAW we got very positive results with the Elcan in needing less ammunition to get hits on targets quicker, because in many cases the tracers are no help at all to a gunner sighting through his iron sights |
|
I guess I should clarify my comments. In the CF we where stuck with the Gen 1 and 2 mounts for the C79. That mount cannot take the abuse a solider gives out. Jury is still out on the C79A2 ELCAN - with its GEN IV/V mount (Gen V is a Gen IV with metal wingnuts...) None of the scopes we deployed to Afghan (for those who used them) had noticebale zero shift issues while deployed. They make an excellent service rifle scope - the FOV is nice and the glass is excellent. HOWEVER is is not ideal for CQB. SOME like it (coldblue being a prime example) and it will be 100% for those uses (plus he has his aimpoints for close stuff...) I am one of the once bitten (in this case about 8 times bitten) twice shy folk with the ELCAN. |
Good to get some real data rather than just "it sucks"  ....Maybe I should clarify. I am neither LEO nor military. I won't be using my weapon to chase terrorists or anything that will be shooting back (hopefully), and I don't really have much interest in killing paper terrorists either. What this weapon will have to do is survive treks cross country, bounce around in a truck, occasional rough treatment, and still whack whatever I'm shooting at 200 yards give or take. Based on handling both in the store (which doesn't tell me much), I think the ACOG is a fine optic (though I am not thrilled with any of the reticles except maybe the 01), and it definitely has the fans at ARFCOM. What I liked/disliked about the Elcan: Like: Larger Objective, Wider FOV (fantastic for my application), liked the reticle ok (though I wish the x bar wasn't so freakin wide), liked the amber chevron Dislike: Heavier and bulkier. Difficult to adjust. << from feedback here apparently some mount issues which if not fixed are instant disqualification >> My main beef with both the ACOG and the Elcan is that I look at other scopes in the same price range and the optics seem much crisper. They'd better be hella durable for the $$ you shell out for them and not just be the tactical flavor of the month. But that's another rant. Thanks for all the feedback. Still don't know what the hell I want to buy, optics-wise, but more information is more ammunition to make a good decision. |
AR Sponsor