Elcan c79 vs c79a2-1
- Thread starter Kelsow
- Start date
Stole the words from my mouth.
I wonder how much time in R&D they spent to make the new mount slightly less s**tty than the one before. They only had a decade or so.
If I had a Loonie for every broken mount I've seen or attempted to trouble-shoot on a range, or for every scope that fell off a new troopies rifle in a marsh at O-dark stupid, or for every stripped nut or over tightened nut, or for every stripped deflection or elevation drum... I could buy Timmies for my whole platoon and then some.
I remember one time, taking two rifles that were N/S, one with a loose sear pin, the other with a faulty Elcan mount. I combined the functioning lower and upper of the two rifles and voila: we could get another shooter on the PWT.
So yeah: C7 = good
C79 = not so much.
All that being said, all the A2's I've seen have been only lightly abused, and time will tell if the new mount will stand up like the old one didn't.
- Location
- 550ft deep in the Pacific ocean
The C79A3 is the latest one i have used. worked well for me had one shooter have tubules with it but think it is more the shooter the the scope
It's the mounting system and not the glass itself that most people have a problem with. To be honest I didn't have to use the A3 model so I can not comment on it. I used the original mount and then the "improved mount and they sucked. All my firing experience is with sights on the yearly qualification range after they were inspected by FCS techs (nothing against them BTW).
I was not infantry, I was armour recce so I had to carry and potentially use this until smarter people intervened and gave us the C8 despite what the sticker at the weapons rack said.
90irocjustin
Regular
- Location
- Victoria, BC
Theres not a whole lot of difference between the A2s and A3s except for a washer under the elevation dial to keep it tighter and threading for an anti reflection/ sun shade on the front.
I used the A3 while i was shooting AFSAM in Little Rock, Arkansas in Oct 2010 and I didnt have any problems until one of the US Army guys dropped my rifle in the vault and ruined my zero... I was pretty angry and I ended up Hot Gunning with one of my buddies because i lost my zero.
I used the A3 while i was shooting AFSAM in Little Rock, Arkansas in Oct 2010 and I didnt have any problems until one of the US Army guys dropped my rifle in the vault and ruined my zero... I was pretty angry and I ended up Hot Gunning with one of my buddies because i lost my zero.
Last edited:
Johnny_Canuck
CGN Regular
- Location
- Edmonton mostly
Never been a fan of the C79. I've had numerous ones issued to me with failed containment so they leaked their gas and dirt made it's way into the sight itself. The mount is not robust, and great care must be taken in mounting and adjustments to avoid stripping threads/breaking detents. The C79 A1 sights I have used are better, but marginally so, and only, I suspect, because they are new. I tend to mount my 1.5-4 Leupold Mark AR for range time when we aren't being watched too close.
- Location
- currently downrange
The OP asked about the C79A2-1 and who has used it. There is only a very few that would have had their hands on them so far and me, 90irocjustin, and imsharkbait are some of them.
To add to the confusion a little the designations are actually:
C79A2-1 (which actually have an "A3" labelled on the scope by the manufacturer but that is not a DND designation) they have the honeycomb anti-reflective filter on the front and the reversed spring mount.
The C79A2-1 with modification is the scope with the washer inserted to adress the wandering zero issue.
These scopes are brand new and most Reg units will not have these issued yet or have the C79A2-1 without the washer mod done yet.
Two things about durability, I fired mine all summer at Bisley, two training camps, NSCC, and CFSAC and I had no issues (which included hauling it through the two obstacle courses at CFSAC) and never once had to re-zero. Time will tell how they hold up to general use but to be fair they have not yet seen widespread issue.
Second thing is for those familiar with the method known as "open gate shooting" with the C79, this puts stress on the mount and elevation drum that the scope was not designed to withstand. I am not surprised that a rifle team shooting hard all summer and fall as the guys mentioned above will see a few wandering zeros over several months use. This is not typical of the general use of the scope.
All that said, I'm not a fan of the mount design either but I like the optical quality.
To add to the confusion a little the designations are actually:
C79A2-1 (which actually have an "A3" labelled on the scope by the manufacturer but that is not a DND designation) they have the honeycomb anti-reflective filter on the front and the reversed spring mount.
The C79A2-1 with modification is the scope with the washer inserted to adress the wandering zero issue.
These scopes are brand new and most Reg units will not have these issued yet or have the C79A2-1 without the washer mod done yet.
Two things about durability, I fired mine all summer at Bisley, two training camps, NSCC, and CFSAC and I had no issues (which included hauling it through the two obstacle courses at CFSAC) and never once had to re-zero. Time will tell how they hold up to general use but to be fair they have not yet seen widespread issue.
Second thing is for those familiar with the method known as "open gate shooting" with the C79, this puts stress on the mount and elevation drum that the scope was not designed to withstand. I am not surprised that a rifle team shooting hard all summer and fall as the guys mentioned above will see a few wandering zeros over several months use. This is not typical of the general use of the scope.
All that said, I'm not a fan of the mount design either but I like the optical quality.
The optical sight itself is pretty decent. Only real most common issue is the mount (wing nuts) gets s**tty after excessive (and slightly abusive) use by the military. Owning an actual Elcan SpecterOS (C79) for general range shooting and even hunting it should work pretty good.
Most of the negative criticism comes from soldiers who are using overly and sometimes improperly used sights. It's also compounded and exaggerated (the criticism).
It is actually a good optical sight.
Most of the negative criticism comes from soldiers who are using overly and sometimes improperly used sights. It's also compounded and exaggerated (the criticism).
It is actually a good optical sight.
