Elcan Reticule Explanation

Gunnerlove said:
Mentioning Bisley reminds me of the movers and advanced movers.

The Elcan lacks horizontal graduations which ment that I was aiming by guess for both slow and fast exposures (Both off target).
At 100m wind is only an issue if it is grabbing your sling.
Click to expand...

I sort of recall in Bisley using the inner point of whichever horizontal stadia line was on the target approach side. And none of that "ambush" stuff, either - -I'm talking about swinging right through the target and pulling the shot after the reticle point crosses the leading edge -- right about the time the stadia line got somewhere on the paper. Not scientific particularly -- but for the "faster" ones, that was my notes. (I remember two speeds, fast and faster)

It was a bit of something like rifle shooting meets skeet shooting.

Wind "grabbing" your sling... I like that. That's the sort of wind that wobbles your helmet around. I don't wear helmet any more. And since I use my own gear - my barrels are all floated...so I can actually use the sling without frigging my POI up. And brother - I use it. Hard. Wind might blow through my sling and make it hum - but it aint grabbing it... Well - retract that - damn NRA service rifle insists that your sling be mounted 2-point, but not used in the 200y standing. So I gues it is a bit of a "sail" in that match anyway.
 
Elcan Instructions

I have a PDF instruction manual for the Elcan, drop me a PM if you would like a copy, or if someone knows how to post it let me know.
 
We ran our 500m zeros on the advanced movers and aimed for that prominant knee and the small triangular shadow just inside the knee. With a 500 zero on it would drop your shots high into the bull box. Aiming was all duck hunting for me too. Ambushing on the fast exposures was near impossible.

Like GL says the A2 has pretty much resolved the zero loss problem.
The springs can be put into an older base(done a bunch myself) but you do need a mill to do it properly ApND you have to make the spring yourself.
 
When dialing elevation in on the ELCAN was it standard practice to dial down past the desired elevation then dial "up" to that point? This usually takes care of backlash in threads.

Were the threads in aluminum at any point or always in steel?
 
How are the bases for the new SpectreOS4 and the SpectreDR? I'm assuming that if the zero loss problem has been addressed with the C79a2 mounts then it was been addressed with the new generation.

Also, that would make for a good sticky if someone could document the process of fixing these things. Please :D
 
Gunnerlove said:
That is was poorly made or that I have not taken one apart yet?

The base was not the issue with the Specter, it was with prisms not indexing correctly.
Click to expand...

That they made it that way. Aluminum threads in aluminum: that I do not get.

If weight was such an issue they could have gone with titanium: a hollow shaft and a thread insert with aluminum or whatever for the rest of the component.

I also have to wonder what is out there in synthetics these days that could be used for the female threads and incorporate a degree of compressability that would help to eliminate backlash or slow its development.

I'm all for sealed optics, but thinking you can have exposed threads in a dusty or desert environment? :rolleyes:

And for the front attachment all you need is a piece of spring steel that will flex as required. No backlash will ever develop in that.
 
Both titanium and stainless bolts gall and seize like bastards. Bronze is the thread material of choice for optics (or so I am told).

The problem with Elcans has been the base, the problem with ACOGs is the optics.
Had Elcan built an optic like the ACOG we might have had a winner.
 
Gunnerlove said:
Both titanium and stainless bolts gall and seize like bastards. Bronze is the thread material of choice for optics (or so I am told).

The problem with Elcans has been the base, the problem with ACOGs is the optics.
Had Elcan built an optic like the ACOG we might have had a winner.
Click to expand...

Interesting, and of course bronze won't survive without grease and grit will destroy it faster than steel - so we're back to sealed optics or a system without threads like a stepped rotating cam - except the grit will get in between the surfaces and make that overshoot.:( Yup, it's back to sealed optics with a rigid base and and a multi-range reticule like the PSO scopes. After all, we only need to go up to 500m right!?;):rolleyes:
 
Gunnerlove said:
Both titanium and stainless bolts gall and seize like bastards. Bronze is the thread material of choice for optics (or so I am told).

The problem with Elcans has been the base, the problem with ACOGs is the optics.
Had Elcan built an optic like the ACOG we might have had a winner.
Click to expand...

Sort of agree. I LOVE the repeatability of the ACOG. But I HATE that it doesn't adjust. (beyond the initial "zeroing.") The stadia lines in the glass for aiming points at different ranges just muddles things as far as I'm concerned. And there's no way it is correct at all ranges with all the ammo you might come across. I shoot competitions, not combat - and I like to aim where I want to hit - and hit there.

THAT said -- I suspect ACOG is more robust, and in combat any bullseye is as good as a V-bull -- so the ACOG might get my vote for THAT sort of competition. The newer reticle patterns and aiming marks are cool, and bang on if you just zero the thing at 100m and roll with it, you get good hits at all ranges from the muzzle out to 300. Ages ago I won Provincial Service rifle match with CFSAC course of fire with an amazing score (if I do say so myself...) -- and the next man in line had an ACOG on his rifle - proof that drivers win races, not cars... he obviously had no difficulty figuring out where to put the pointer at all the ranges...

I dearly love the Elcan reticle and wish that it had had a better base when I was using them.
 
that center post is what I hate the most about the redical. If your rounds are impacting low at the longer ranges you can't see the splash.

As for the sights themselfs... leasons learned from the C79 has made for great inprovments in their civilian line of products.
 
ACOG is not designed to be adjusted the way you will adjust a scope - everytime it is being adjusted, it needs to be tapped(or whacked) to let the dial set in.

In a nutshell, these combat "sigts" are not designed for being "dialled" for every shot like a "scope". They are supposed to be set, and the shooter will fire and adjust.

When I am on my own time, I only shoot ACOG. Before moving targets became part of the regular programing, I used ACOG with great success and I have never ever dialed the exact wind and elevation. I only started dialing in the wind because of the movers. It is just too mind mingling to formulate the lead inside my head when wind is blowing and targeting is moving in 2 directions.
 
That was not the issue. In Australia dialing wind during matches will get you DQed.
Also both Bisley and Australia run many electronic range matches from 25-500m forcing you to hold over and hold for wind as there is zero time to touch your optic between the seemingly random exposures. The ACOGs were gettting beat to hell by the recoil. Could it be an AUG/ SA80 problem? sure but they were having the same issues south of the border.


The ACOGs were failing, due to reticles coming loose, running out of adjustment as the zero wandered off into the woods and the adhesives used to secure the lenses were turning the optics into snow globes.

One theory was that Trijicon made a quality product, but gearing up for the huge contracts hurt QC. Their Pacific region rep described the failures as a few minor issues. I figured that not having a reticle was a huge issue but I am only an end user.

Keep in mind that using the BDC on a C79 uses the same elevation threads as are used when dialing open gate. There is only one elevation mech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom