We have Government furnished ELCAN 145's for use by SF and light fighters and I am not sure why they would want one rather than a Aimpoint on an AR.  I know we use them on M249 and M240 guns since the reticle is a machine gun one.  Anyone use on on an AR and have a comment I would like to know.

The Army Owns the Night
God Bless America and God please keep blessing Texas
Very Respectfully,
David
South West Asia

Quoted: We have Government furnished ELCAN 145's for use by SF and light fighters and I am not sure why they would want one rather than a Aimpoint on an AR.  I know we use them on M249 and M240 guns since the reticle is a machine gun one.  Anyone use on on an AR and have a comment I would like to know.

1) An Aimpoint is not magnified. An Elcan is. So, I imagine that if said soldiers wanted a magnified optic, Elcan might come to mind, while Aimpoint would not.

2) The M4 variant has a different reticle than the LMG variant. A third reticle, tritium rather than battery powered, is in use by Canadian forces. The Dutch and Danes also use Elcans, but I don't know which reticle.

3) I like mine because of the amazing glass (very forgiving eye placement, eye relief, clarity, and light gathering), and because BAC doesn't BAC for me. Still, I like my TA01NSN as much, if not more, and it is lighter and cheaper. Doesn't mean I will be selling the Elcans anytime soon, though.

Quoted: Anyone use on on an AR and have a comment I would like to know.

Joe (of the boomershoot just had his ELCAN fail. Apparently the BDC has come loose and as a result the reticule is no longer held in place. His is the first failure of an ELCAN I have heard of.

I suspect the reason you standardized on the ELCAN optics is for commonality of parts and training. I like them very much - well, liked them. I like my Trijicon much more