Anyone have one of these sights on their AR 15??  I am using the Aimpoint M4S and the 3X mag.  How do they compare.  If money was not a factor which of these would you buy and why.  Thanks..

I've never used one, but I researched them for a good week while trying to decide on an optic.

The general consensus is that they work just as good as an ACOG at range and that they also work well at their 1x setting, giving it a functional advantage over the ACOG. If their price was the same as the Trijicon optics they were competing with, it'd almost be a no-brainer.

The big negatives were magnification adjustment design, mounting system, and cost. Cost is self-explanatory ($2,000). Design relates to the fact that the magnification is controlled directly via a throw lever. The lenses move directly by moving the lever - if the lever doesn't seat perfectly/correctly, your magnification, reticle, and therefore POI will be off. Also they used ARMS mounts for whatever reason, which has a notorious reputation for having their throw-level handles snap off - not exactly the most robust option on a $2,000 optic.

They're great optics, but at that price, they have a lot of refining to do before they'll be worth it to me.

So in your week of research you ran into all those problems with one?

He's stating common bitches, gripes and complaints regarding the ELCAN that have been posted here and on other sites and given that the DR has been out for a while now I would say it would take about a week to "research" same on the net.  Go E Z, Kev.  

The funny thing is that 90% of the people that bitch about them have only seen one on the internet.

I've been using one as my primary optic for over six months now.  Note that this is civilian use, but it gets to the field and in rough conditions more than most civvies.  There are several other threads here I'm sure you've seen about it, but typically the military doesn't like them, civilians do.  It seems very bulky and heavy, but I think it has to be less so than, say, an Aimpoint and magnifier with mounts.  
Complaints about the ARMS levers causing zero shift may be vaild––for guys who turn their weapons into the arms room and remove the optics regularly.  Mine stays on my carbine 90% of the time, so I have no issues there.
I've never noticed any significant shift when switching from low to high power, either.  I like the red dot/illuminated crosshair reticle.  I find the eye relief to be far nicer than an ACOG, or most other scopes, really.

I wouldn't mind better battery life, ability to fit a BUIS behind it, and the option to put it on another mount, but overall I'm very happy with it.

You know this how? Research?   Do you have/use one? Have you used one?      

Pics?  It's a nice optic. Price is a bit steep and I don't like the ARMS mount. Everything else I can deal with, though.

I agree with you regarding some .Mil types not liking this optic. A partner of mine leaves his in a go bag and runs his ACOG instead.

When they start their posts out like this -


it is not too hard to figure out.


I own one and the funny thing is that I haven't run into half of the problems that have never even seen one seem to have.

Please point out where I bashed the Elcan even once. Not only will you not find it (since I don't dislike them), if you look hard enough, you'll see I actually said they have better functionality than ACOGs. You see, there's a difference between stating opinion and stating objective facts, and the facts are that it's a well-conceived optic that had poor implementation. When you have multiple reports of entire military squads trashing their issued DR's and using personally-bought ACOGs and Aimpoints, that says something loud and clear. I don't need to own one to know that the magnification throw-lever has poor design, nor do I need to spend $2,000 to know that the ARMS mount throw-levers commonly break on them, just like I don't have to drink cyanide to find out if it's poisonous. Since you find it hard to believe reports of issues coming directly from military units and operators, you may want to make sure the law of gravity is indeed real by jumping off a cliff and posting your first-hand experience after the fact (since extensive research from reputable sources is void and meaningless).

No disrespect meant to those that own them - if they work for you, awesome. For me, the aforementioned items were a deal breaker and anyone who appreciates in-depth research and reviews will not take the above as "bashing" the Elcan. It is what it is and, if you try to hide it, you're most likely more interested in validating your purchase for your own satisfaction than you are in simply taking letting the facts be known and letting others make up their minds accordingly.

Oh, and while you're at it, please also explain how you ended up choosing an oxymoron for a forum handle.

kev,

So one person, stating he hasn't used a DR, passing on information he has found while conducting research for possible purchase of said DR, somehow makes correct your "90%" remark?

I'm glad your GTG with the ELCAN. From what I understand many folks are happy (and unhappy) with theirs.  Please provide a little more info;

1)  What lead you to buy the DR in the first place?

2)  What other optic(s) did you consider?

3)  What optic/mount combo did the DR replace or augment?

4)  Is the DR used for work or for fun?

5). Thank you.

Completely off-topic, but are you a WWII aircraft enthusiast, Yak9?

Yes, I am (if you saw my last name you would understand the reason for my user handle ). You?

Iraq Elcan SpecterDR Review...  Stateside Review Coming Soon.

The Elcan must be the most loved and hated optic.  No middle ground.  For the price Elcan could offer a better warranty.

I own an Elcan.  All the bitches I just read above are complete horse-shit.  It's, hands-down, the best optic on the planet for a CQB AR.  

I'll take the bitches one-by-one:



Meh, I got mine at $1500 shipped in perfect condition.  That's about comparable with some Trijicon optics (the ones with the delicate little red-dot on top)  I've seen (maybe a little more).  



You have to go out of your way to not seat the lever properly.  Even in the middle of various matches, I get it to seat every time with no problem.  Then again, I am of the opinion that slow is smooth, smooth is fast... so, slow is fast.  



Only in LaRue fanboy threads.  I have a bunch of ARMS mounts (including the one on the specter), and, unless you're going to seat the throw-lever with a hammer, you're not going to experience a failure.  (if you disagree, I'll wait for a link to a thread or website detailing exactly how the failure happened and under what conditions - or, since these are deployed with SOCOM units overseas... I'll wait for a .gov report detailing the failures experienced overseas with the ARMS mounts.).  



When LaRue makes a mount for it, I might buy one.  Until then, the ARMS one is perfectly sufficient.  



You're paying WAY too much of you pay $2k for an Elcan.  And, the scope is fantastic.

The price is not comparable to similar Trijicon optics - it's similar to Trijicon DUAL optic setups (i.e. ACOG + Reflex). Even if you DO compare a DR with a Reflexed ACOG, you can still get the ACOG cheaper (by several hundred dollars if you shop around).



That's not the issue - the problem is that the design can allow it to be seated improperly through normal usage. It doesn't matter if you go out of your way or not - the fact is that it can. Civilian end-users typically play this off as "well, it doesn't normally happen," but that doesn't mean it can't happen when you need it most. In a phrase, it's a poor design. It doesn't matter if it can be made to work or not - the fact is there's an inherent flaw with it.



Apparently you've either never seen what true military use does to an ARMS mount or you've simply ignored everything but the good reports from, again, civilian users. ARMS levers work as long as they aren't pulled on and off a rail repeatedly. After so many detachments and reattachments, (typically in the ballpark of 50-100 cycles), the mounts lose their tension. In addition, the ARMS tend to break due to the brittle steel used and the thinness of the metal. If you think I or anyone else is BS'ing, then I challenge you to do the on-and-off test 200 times and video record it. You'll probably claim that this is over-abuse - no, it's typical military usage and the reason ARMS got their rep in the first place.



That's all you can do.



And if you're paying $1,500 for an ACOG, you're paying too much. For $600 less, an ACOG will not only do just as well, but will save you enough money to buy a quality mount (read: not A.R.M.S.) and a case of 1,000 rounds of ammo, and still have money left over.

That's EXACTLY what I compared...



Yeah, but the Trijicon is not as good of a scope as the Elcan in terms of glass or durability.  The ACOG is nice, and I like them, but it's not an Elcan.  



I suppose it's an inherent flaw that the rifle has a safety or other control that must be properly manipulated in order for effective kinetic effects to be realized.  Nope, the Elcan training overcomes this "flaw" with little problem.  Find me a qualified person who subscribes to your theory.  



Again, cite a source for this assertion.  I've searched this site and the web and come up with nothing but unsubstantiated anecdotes from random internet posters... who, more than likely, used a hammer to get their ARMS mounts on or off.  

I'll even take a SINGULAR instance of an Elcan Specter DR ARMS mount failing as sufficient proof of my error.



If you're going to buy an ACOG that compares to the Specter (and you can't) you'd be paying in the neighborhood of $1300.  An extra $200 for the Elcan with superior glass is worth it to me.  Your assertions about the ARMS mounts are fiction until you can show me something (that is NOT in the LaRue Industry forum) that proves otherwise.  

Have you had ANY education, or any experience in logic at all? Just because a rifle has a safety doesn't mean it was flawed - it's simply to prevent inadvertent firing. Even if the rifle fires by inadvertent user operation, it's the USER that's at fault, NOT the rifle. The ElcanDR has a DESIGN FLAW. Explaining that the throw lever probably won't get stuck doesn't make the problem go away, and neither does moving the lever gently. It's a combat optic and it should work 100% regardless of how gently or roughly the user adjusts it. That's it and that's all.



You keep saying the Elcan is "superior," you then keep claiming that I need to provide "proof" of ARMS mounts breaking (which shows either your true lack of knowledge on the subject matter - either way, I'll link the reports shortly). So please, post your "proof" that the Elcan is indeed superior. And no, hearsay and opinion don't count - I want the physical manufacturing specs and post-production performance values that prove it's indeed superior.

I love double-standards - requiring others to post proof while your reviews magically speak for themselves.

So, my ARMS mount really didn't snap a lever off when my rifle took a fall the 2nd time I was deployed back in 03?  Whew!  I was worried....

I never said anything about gently.  I said "slowly" which means you positively actuate levers and buttons on your weapons.  Fast fingers on a gun leads to fuck-ups the same way fast hands in the cockpit do.   As for education... Yes, I've had quite a bit.  It is a matter of opinion that it is a design flaw.  I disagree.  

ETA: I just went and tried it.  Yes, you CAN get the lever stuck half-way.  But you have to go out of your way to TRY to get it stuck half-way.  If you can rub two brain-cells together, you can swap back and forth under the conditions one would normally be swapping optics (and probably some more stressful conditions, too).

No one is going to be swapping back and forth mid-firefight anyway.  Sometimes, you just take what you've got.  The flipping is available so that, if you know you're going to clear your house, you select 1x.  If you know you're going to be clearing a field, you select 4x.  There is no swapping mid-firefight... that's just retarded and not a part of the proper employment of this optic.  So, it's not a design flaw unless you have ZERO comprehension of basic rifleman tactics.  



Well, I'll wait for the links.  If you're trying to suggest that Elcan is a manufacturer of poor glass (or even that Trijicon makes glass of equal caliber), I think you don't know too terribly much about Elcan.  And, let's not even get started on an ACOG's eye-relief compared to the Specter's.



I have a similar love for people who have never used a particular piece of gear regurgitating things they read on internet forums as gospel.

I purchased my rifle hardly used from a friend of mine. It came with an 4x NSN ACOG on it. It is a good optic but wasn't exactly what I wanted.

I looked around the net and every is using either an ACOG, Aimpoint, or EOTech.

Regarding the EOTech there were a lot of posts complaining about failures and battery issues with the EOTech so that kind of nixxed that for me (if you have an EOTech and it has worked great for you then I am glad, please do not turn this into a me and my EOTech is better than....). It has no magnification.

The Aimpoint has a great reputation, amazing battery life, and is light and compact. It also doesn't have any magnification.

I looked at magnifiers but do not like that option as -
- more pieces means more rail space.
- more pieces means more weight.
- more pieces equals greater chances of an issue.

While I know there are lots of people running magnifiers, the whole set up just does not appeal to me.

The ACOG that came on the rifle is a good optic. It is compact, durable, and does not use a battery but as I said, not exactly what I wanted. I am getting older (will be 40 this year) and my eyesight is not what it used to be. I felt like I was straining my eyes to see the finer reticle the ACOG uses. While the other optics offer no magnification on their own, the ACOG only had magnification.

I saw ACOG's with DR optics installed on them but they are not cheap, add another piece with the potential to fail, and are on another plain of sight.

I looked a round more and came across the Elcan DR 1x4. I liked how it is basically an "Aimpoint and an ACOG" as someone posted once in one package.

I liked how it was part of the SOCOM kit. Not because I thought that made it cool, but it let me know I didn't have to worry about it losing zero every 5 shots until the glass fell out on shot #20.

I looked into it and saw posts on a lot of boards. I found a lot of negative posts, but the thing I notices was the majority of those posts were several years old. When it was first released there were some design issues, but the optic has been updated since then and some of the issues were addressed.

As Skyyer stated there were issues with the lever, but this set up has been changed. Now it is either in 1x or 4x, you cannot get it in between.  

There were also many posters that did not like the external adjustment as they felt banging it on something could cause a change to POI. The thing was that no one could say they actually experienced this.

People complained about the ARMS levers on it. Some of the complaints were fit issues on various brands of rifles, the mount would not fit the rails tight. I own a Colt and haven't had any issues. A lot of the complaints were based on ARMS reputation, but again not a lot actual failures to report. While I will not argue that ARMS does not have the best rep, I have had zero issues with the ARMS mounts. I recently read another Elcan thread in which someone stated that while he never had good luck with ARMS mounts, the ARMS mounts on his Elcan seem to be the exception which made me wonder if Elcan spec'd out a higher quality for this optic.

Another criticism was that it is not a true 1x optic but in looking at other variable powered optics I found that this is common.

The most common thing would be a four year old thread in which an operator that had been issued one stated his dislikes and then the mob mentality would kick in and there would be a flurry of posts about how bad it was based on the info in that one post. In one thread a guy bashed about how it was a piece of junk because it would not hold zero even after admitting that he did not know that you had to lock the elevation adjuster down after setting it. In the majority of these threads only one or two people had actual experience with it, hence the 90% percent figure.

During my research I emailed & pm'd several people about comments they made about it. Some had good things to say and some had bad things to say. Some of the bad things while valid at the time of their experience had been updated on newer releases.

From my own experience, I like how you go from 1x to 4x with the flip of a lever that locks into position w/ no BS. No knobs to dial up several settings. I like how it is all one piece and not multiple pieces with pivot mounts and all that.

The illumination has great range of adjustment to me and I like that there is still a reticle there in case I run out of battery.

While it is not small, it doesn't feel big on the rifle. People talk about how heavy it is, especially when compared to an ACOG. The thing is that when people are comparing the weights off the internet they do not include the weight of the mount for the ACOG. When you include that the weight is not as far off as first presented.

I have it on a Colt 6920 that I have for if the home defense/SHTF situations. I am not a LEO and served in the United States Marine Corps Reserves about 20 years ago. I do not hunt with it and so far have shot about 500 rounds with it on there. I know this is low but I have been out of work for a while and funds are low. Once I get back to work I am going to put some more rounds through it and want to do a Magpul class with it.

I sold the ACOG to a friend that I shoot with and while he likes the ACOG he loves the Elcan and wishes he had one too. The both of us shoot good with both of them.

Skyyr, why are you even running your mouth and  putting out second hand information from God knows where when you have no personal experience with what you are "talking" about?

Are you an expert because you have internet expeirence and have read people's posts?

How many times has the "design flaw" showed up in your use of the system?

 

I needed an optic that had a red-dot (albeit, not a holographic red-dot) and an etched reticle (in case the battery died).  I also wanted a variable power optic, but I didn't like the twist-the-tube method of adjustment.  I wanted top-of-the-line glass.  I wanted something that was essentially bullet-proof in construction.  The Elcan is built like a brick outhouse.  As an added bonus, I really like my Night-Force optics and the way their reticles illuminate.  The Elcan has an illuminated reticle or a red-dot depending on what you want at the time.  There are also built-in ADJUSTABLE iron sights on top of the mount.  



ACOG with the reflex sight on top.  and an Aimpoint CompM4 with the magnifier.  The center of gravity for the Aimpoint combo was way too forward to make the weapon comfortable to shoot, and the combo weighed just as much as the Elcan.  



Iron sights.  



I work very hard at having fun.  



You're welcome.

How high was it when you dropped it?  How did the impact occur?  Look, I'm not saying it CAN'T break - I'm saying that under normal conditions, they RARELY break.  And, again, I'll wait for a SINGULAR instance of an ARMS Specter DR mount breaking.

This is the second time you've purposely avoided posting your "proof" as to why Elcan is magically "better." Can you say "hypocrite"?

As for A.R.M.S. mount breaking:
Broken Mount
An A.R.M.S. Fanboi's Mount Breaksl
A.R.M.S. ACOG Mount Won't Hold Zero

I limited my search to sites off of arfcom and to looking for 5 minutes. If you want me to link to the obvious, then we can look at the 40+ page thread of broken ARMS mounts as well.

Eye relief, clarity of glass (zeiss scale), robustness of the optic itself, FOV, illumination options/intensities/nvd compatibility... all these things are firmly in the corner of Elcan...



Yay!  Three people (two from the same thread)... I'll take the 40 page thread when you're ready... unless it's the one where people are told by LaRue to break their shit ON PURPOSE to send in to him for a free exchange (which was one HELL of a deal, I might add).  If I'd known about it in time, I might have participated.

Perhaps you should read the AAR report from the Elcan's service in Iraq that was previously quoted in this thread.

And I'll say it one more flucking time: Just because you haven't jumped off a cliff doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. I don't need to purchase an Elcan DR to have read reviews from numerous end-users and actual military units who DITCHED their DR's in favor of out-pocket purchased optics. If the flaws didn't exist, then they wouldn't be hated so much by the people who actually use them for a living (read: actual operators).

I also hate EOTechs, even though I've never owned one. Why? Because after reading 300+ cases of them breaking and an actual case of a unit falling off the rails during military testing, I don't need to shell out $400+ to prove what's a widely known fact: they break and break often.

It's called doing actual research before making a purchase - not skimming a forum for 2 hours and then making up your mind and then trying to brainwash everyone else into thinking you've made a good choice. Please, save it.

The common reports from military users state the items I listed above several times across various reports. Because YOU haven't run into it in your twice-a-month shooting regiment on a bench doesn't make the known issues go away.

Post a LINK from the actual specifications showing they're better. This is now the THIRD time you've failed to do this after hypocritically asking others to do the same.

Cite one of these reports.  Please God something that isn't an idiotic anecdote on an internet forum.  If you can make a solid case, I'll retract everything I've said.

My rifle was resting on it's stock leaning on a Texas barricade and at some point gravity took over and down she went a grand total of what, 12in or so?

I agree that ARMS mounts failing in mass is not likely.  But I will never put much trust in them again. I also have a "funny" story relating to it's return back to ARMS for repair/replacement but that's a subject for another thread.

Guess what kid, you have no idea who I am or what I gave done. But it is readily apparent from your posts and the information you pass on as truth that you don't know shit.  

Post a LINK from the actual specifications showing they're better. This is now the THIRD time you've failed to do this after hypocritically asking others to do the same.[/quote]

Seriously, which of those do you think the ACOG does better?  

Specter:
SpecterDR 1x-4x Specifications
Magnification 1x/4x
Length 153mm nominal
Width 71mm nominal
Height 72mm nominal
Weight 598g nominal
Reticle Dual-thickness range finding crosshair with user-selectable red dot
Ballistic Correction 200 to 600m for 5.56 NATO (in reticle)
Illumination Source Battery-powered LED
Crosshair Illumination 5 settings, night vision compatible
Red Dot Illumination 5 settings, night vision compatible
Eye Relief 70mm
Field of View 26 deg @ 1x, 6.5 deg @ 4x
FoV @ 1x 46.2 m @ 100 m (138.4 ft @ 100 yds)
FoV @ 4x 11.4 m @ 100 m (34.2 ft @ 100 yds)
Coaxial Alignment <1.5 MoA between fields
Entrance Pupil 32mm
Exit Pupil 8mm
Fixed Focus Range 20m to infinity
Battery Type CL 1/3N (3v Lithium)
Battery Life 300 hours min., 2000 hours average
Exterior Finish Anodized aluminum, dark green color
Adjustment Resolution 0.5 minute of angle
Adjustment Range 120 minutes of angle
Base requirement Mil-Std-1913 "picatinny Rail"
Attachment ARMS Levers
Environmental:
 - Waterproof:
 - Shockproof:
66 ft for 2 hours min
450 g's
Available Options Anti-Reflection Device

Acog:
Magnification   4.00
Objective Size  32.00
Bullet Drop Compensator  Yes
Length (in)  6.20
Weight (oz)  15.00
Illumination source  Fiber Optics & Tritium
Reticle Pattern  Crosshair
Day Reticle Color  Red
Night Reticle Color  Red
Calibration  .223
Bindon Aiming Concept  Y
Eye Relief (in)  1.50
Exit Pupil (mm)  8.00
Field of View (°)  7.00
Field of View @ 100yrds (ft)  36.80
Adjustment @ 100 yds (clicks/in)  2.00
Tube Size  N/A
Mount  A.R.M.S. #19LD
Mount On/Comes With  A.R.M.S. #19LD
Housing Material  Forged Aluminum
Special Order  No

The ACOG claims a half a degree better FOV at 4x than the Specter, but given the variable power, I'm still giving the FOV to the Specter.  The NVD settings trump the ACOG along with the eye relief.  The robustness of the Elcan means you'd end up destroying your rifle before the optic.  The high moment arm on the ACOGs will make it far easier to knock that thing off zero than an Elcan.  BTW, this is for the ACOG that costs $1900 according to Trijicon.  I don't know what other specs you'd like.  But, since no one has specified an actual design requirement against which we can measure these points, this is a silly discussion of what is "better."

As for the quality of the glass... well, if you know anything about photography, Elcan is some really slick kit.  Optical clarity is their thing.

My Brother-in-law did exactly the same thing with my Elcan when it was brand new.  It was tough to be nice.  



I'll buy that.  

So, hold on, the ACOG is fixed at 4x and has a BETTER FOV, yet you're claiming the Elcan's FOV is better because it's 1-4x? Sorry, just because it has an added 1x feature doesn't make the FOV better. In fact, all the ACOG user has to do is raise his head to switch to 1x, while the Elcan user has to switch the lever then re-acquire/re-center the target. And in regards to NVD, the ACOG doesn't need NVD settings because the tritium is ALREADY NVD compatible. If there's no light then your illumination is already tritium and is therefore NVD compatible. Further, there's no need to switch settings because the fiber-optics do it automatically.

Secondly, you're comparing MSRP - not the actual value. Again, you're being completely biased. You purposely state that anyone who pays $2,000 for an Elcan isn't looking for good prices, followed by a link to Trijicon posting an MSRP? Seriously? Are you THAT dense? And to top it all, you don't even include the ACOG model. Luckily, I used Google and found that you're referring to the TA31ECOS. Three different sites list the scope for less than $1400 ($1370, actually - that's $530 less than your quoted price).

Third, the ACOG is better in the following attributes:
- Waterproof to 328ft (compared to the Elcan's 66ft)
- BDC goes out to longer distances
- No need to switch between 1x and 4x since the RDS in on top the weapon.
- The ACOG's design is more sturdy (ANY fixed optic is going to be more robust that a variable)

Lastly, you still haven't posted the specs (actually, the only ones that I asked for) showing that the GLASS is better quality.

You ever used the tritium in a Trijicon product WITHOUT NVD's?  



I didn't think anyone would pay that for the Trijicon either... but I figured MSRP was the only fair comparison.  

I was quoting an ACOG



Well, when I go wreck-diving with my M4, I'll be sure to take an ACOG.



You're not going to realistically engage targets out to 1000 yards with a 5.56.  So, it's just so much clutter in the reticle (which is a bad thing).



Iron sight on top of the elcan.  But only ONE sight allows you to keep the cheek weld with 1x.



I give... you're much smarter than me... and you apparently have much more time than me to go surfing all the gun boards on the internet to find obscure examples of mounts breaking.  Well, I don't have the time to go find you the glass data - I know a bit about photography, and the idea that Trijicon is on par with Elcan is laughable.  I have no idea where you're coming up with your data, but it is out to lunch.... Enjoy your optic.  But your shitting all over the Elcan is tiresome - especially from someone who has never used one... or even SEEN one.  

Are you implying that the ACOG doesn't have other illumination? Because it has fiber-optics. Or are you implying that you'd use it completely in the dark without NVD whatsoever? Because then you're a moron.



They designed the ACOG to be safely used with under-water ops, unlike the Elcan which is virtually water-resistant (as it only has a 2-hour 66ft rating). Knocking it because you'll never need it is not only ridiculous, but it shows you're not interested in the specific differences between the models; you just want to point out what YOURS does better.



SPR operators commonly engage targets out to a max of 800yds, so quit saying that it's not useful. Further, the Elcan has almost IDENTICAL markings - the ACOG's are just longer vertically. I could point out that other ACOG models have shorter DBC's than the Elcan - to what you'd say, I have no idea. You're just arguing now for the sake of arguing.



So, wait. You say the Elcan is better because it acts as an RDS (which requires a throw-lever to be activated). When I point out that the ACOG has an RDS that is always on on-top of the scope, you point out that the Elcan has those two. What you're saying is in practice, the RDS is virtually useless in a split-second CQ situation and that the iron sights more than suffice, yet you're knocking that EXACT setup on an ACOG. Could you seriously be any more hypocritical? That's not even touching on  the subject that ANY variable optic is, by definition, less rugged than a similar-built fixed optic.



And this is what most people would call a "spin." You see it commonly with liberals and anti-gunners. They can't back up their facts, so instead of simply saying "I can't find the data" or "it's just my opinion," they type an essay to explain why they don't "have the time" to find the data in an attempt to mask their logic loops and flaws. Yeah that Elcan has MUCH better glass - so good that you'd rather post other commentaries (like how the Elcan's FOV is better because it's 1x even though the specs clearly show the ACOG to have a wider FOV) instead of simply backing up your statements.

Ciao.

Another Elcan owner, as well as an ACOG TA31H owner.

In a nutshell, the Elcan is a very useful scope with very useful features, with a serviceable (but not great) mount. The ACOG is a great middle distance combat optic, but not so great in a CQB environment - even with a secondary MRDS mounted.

A lot of the stuff you're posting about the Elcan vs the ACOG (ECOS) seems to point to your lack of experience with both setups.

For example, you can flip magnification on the Elcan without having to dismount the rifle. No need to reacquire the target, as your eye never leaves the scope. The Gen II/III mag lever is also nearly impossible to position incorrectly; it is either at 1x or 4x, with detents at each end. The zero shift has been eliminated, the elevation knob locks down to prevent inadvertent movement, and the glass is exceptionally clear.

The ACOG also has great glass, but the design of the optic means that the left side of the reticle is blurry. You can read about this on the Trijicon web site. The ACOG is definitely lighter and simpler, but this is the side "benefit" of having no integral 1x setting. The BAC works for some, not for others, and using the reticle in OEG mode requires the shooter to understand and track optical offset. The eye relief on the TA31 line is also quite tight, about half of what is available to a shooter on the Elcan.

As for specs, much of the numbers game is meaningless. I can't imagine being waterproof at 66ft vs 328ft is meaningful in any way to anyone that is not going OTB. FOV is a wash in practical terms. And trying to shoot using the MRDS atop an ACOG is far, far from ideal –– there's massive offset, your head floating above the stock makes it hard to acquire the dot, and it's hard to be consistent and fast without tons and tons of practice shooting with no cheekweld.

The Elcan's Achille's heel is its mount, but as a civilian shooter I don't plan on bashing the mount against rocks or M-ATV doors. For the vast majority of shooting situations, including home defense and competition/classes, the Elcan mount will be more than adequate. The ACOG has much better mounting options (LaRue, Bobro).

Research and secondary info is great to start a decisionmaking process, but nothing beats time behind the gun to make your final choice.

IMHO, of course.

I'm well aware of the things you mentioned and I've owned and ran ACOGs before - the ACOG comments I speak of first hand.

I also agree that numbers are meaningless, but since some people want to get down to straws, I started listing objectively what the ACOG does better (and it does a LOT better).

Further, the issues with throw-lever on the Elcan were stemming from users throwing the lever without physically looking at it's position (i.e. keeping a cheek weld while changing magnification), hence my comment about requiring the rifle to be unshouldered. Without looking at the throw-lever location, it's difficult to tell if it was placed correctly.

No, it really isn't hard at all to tell where the throw lever is on the Gen II/III DRs. The lever "snaps" from 1x to 4x; it is under tension at any other position. Looking through the scope, it is very obvious whether you're at 1x or 4x. And the lever will not move on its own due to the detents at each end of the range of motion.

Are you saying you find the ACOG/MRDS combination an acceptable setup? I personally could never get used to it. As for what the ACOG does better –– again, I encourage you to get behind a DR before forming that opinion. We seem to agree that the numbers don't tell the whole story.

Research and secondary info is great as long as the researcher knows what to do with the info.

this thread is a laugh riot

Here is another review by someone who actually owns one and used it over in The Sandbox.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=454478

It is amazingly another case of an actual owner being more satisfied and having less problems with his scope than the internet experts that have only seen on online.

I'd like to add a bit to this thread. I've been running the Elcan Spectre DR on a Daniel defense upper in afghanistan for the last 3.5 months. I ended up taking the doctor optic off the top because i lost the cover and never really used it anyways. Shooting someone close enough to use a reflex optic means you have to do it quick, looking for a dot floating above (about an inch above) your normal cheek/stock weld was something i wasnt used to or willing to train myself to do, so i rely on insinctive shooting (? not sure if thats what its really called) instead. As for the 1x setting, id say its pretty usefull when using the illuminated dot. the 4x setting is great,, the FOV and clarity are awesome, i usually just leave it on 4x.  We also have some mounted on the 240 on the back of the trucks, ive always been torn between using the iron sights because of the range adjustments and using a magnified optic for better pid ability, right now im more prone to use a magnified optic on a mmg because of the ability to PID better (my eyesight gets worse daily..ugh)

Pro's for me:
-clarity
-illluminated dot or illuminated reticle settings help in low light, especially illuminating the whole reticle, provides effective ranging method when you dont have your lrf handy
-ease of knobs for zeroing, the elevation is a giant locking wheel, and the windage can be turned with just about anything flat and rigid, and we all know that when you go to zero your rifle, the chances of remembering a gerber or screwdriver are slim to none.....at least in my case because i have the attention span of a goldfish
-the tube itself is a brick shit house, lots of abuse, and metal around the ocular lens on mine is beaten badly, still dont have any problems with the glass

Con's
-i can wiggle the whole optic up and down, it seems to seat back in the same place, but makes me wonder about its actual stability/ability to retain a zero. Me and another guy have been checking our bzo's every few days and after work, there is usually a slight poi shift but never more than an inch, that could be due to shooting m855 in cold then warm weather...inconsistency in temp.
-shooting 77gr match in an attempt to tighten up groups and retain better repeated poi just made the groups tighter but they still moved about an inch after heavy use
-the Arms mount is a bitch to get on and off and some have to be pried with a screw driver, i dont believe any of ours have broken but it seems likely that it will occur eventually, if it does ill post pics and explain how it happened


Overall its a great optic, but i think the mounting system could be improved, because of my role in the team I usually end up being up close and personal so i end up laying suppressive fire more often than taking slow well aimed shots, but the field of view is wide enough that even when the gun is on auto i can still manage about a 10 round burst and keept the gun on target (vicinity is more like it)

Here's a few pics of the optic and rifle its on for referense.......and i cant figure out how to upload pictures of arfcomms media server and i dont want to put pics of this on photobucket, if somebody would like to fill me in on the matrix that is arfcom and how to upload pics id be obliged!

I love mine. Spent a fair amount of time reading about it here and on other sites. As others have stated, there really is no middle ground. It is loved, or hated and usually with great passion to either direction. I took the plunge as I switched jobs and cashed out 144 hours of vacation time and it was my gift to myself, also got a really good deal on it from a vendor here on the site. As someone else mentioned, battery life could be better but I am still on the first battery with several range trips and one night of leaving it on. I also dropped my rifle right after I bought it and sighted it in. Took a good chunk out of the drywall and bent the rear iron site. No significant POI shift. Now some may say the rear iron bending is unacceptible on a $1600 optic. Eh, the irons on top looked like they were going to get caught up on things anyway. So I took them off and don't miss them...

You asked for a picture, so here is one to prove that I do in fact own one.

I took mine off right away. They looked more likely to get snagged on something than being of any real use.

I bought recently an Elcan SpecterDR second hand so it got it cheaper. It has seen very little use with the first owner, who had it for a year. I felt reluctant to pay the full price of a new one, largely because of mixed comments I had read. Would be much nicer if only those who have first hand experience would comment, not armchair commandos who think they "know" the "truth" when opinions are based only on others' comments.

We have real winter here now, so I have been shooting with Elcan mounted on a HK MR223 only once, but I can say like it. On HK's Picatinny rail that ARMS mount fitted snugly and nicely. Very good optical quality, on par with Swarovski, better than Kahles, ACOG and Accupoint I have owned previously. Very large field of view at 1x, and fast switch between 1x/4x is nice. Reticle feels good for my eyes and illumination goes bright enough. The thing that I don't like is the illumination knob, hard to turn. These are my experiences so far, I can comment better when I have more experience with Elcan.

Ossi

Why spend $2k on something to see if it will fail if others have already done it?  Thats like watching someone pee on a electric fence and trying it yourself to duplicate the results.  FWIW, Ive never broken an ARMS mount and do plan on buying a Specter DR, but Im a glutton for punishment.

No doubt, I'm still trying to get over the comments about ACOG's robustness not being the same as Elcans....and that ARMS levers are just as good as LaRue's!!

Arfcom is full of 's