Elcan optics for my AR

[Armament]

I've always been under the impression that the Elcan was unique because it had an integrated secondary function as a brick you could throw at the enemy once you missed him with 30 rounds.

 

[ptr308]

ptr, I don't think anyone is arguing with the quality of Elcan's glass, most complaints of the Elcan I've heard are in regards to the mount, though there is the issue people have been having with the zero shifting when switching between magnification settings. Good to hear you haven't been having issues with the one you're testing.

Reaper, is there any chance you can give us a rundown of the problems your unit had with the testing, especially numbers on how many you had and how many were having problems?

Hi Seyek,
I too had heard of the mount issue which is why I am in the testing process for them. They are into Gen 2 with adjustment locks in the DR series and I have experienced O fail to hold zero when using controlled environment testing. This includes fixed distance, same point of aim (POA), batched ammunition. The reason for this is to see if POI shift is user induced or mechanical error with the optic. I have spoken with a program manager at SOCOM and SEAL end users with no negative feedback on loss of zero. I think many people misunderstand the role and design of the DR. Just like a tube based scope point of impact (POI) can be different at different distances and different magnifications due to the arc of travel and the ballistic profile of the round being fired. The reticle on the DR is stationary, the magnifier lense moves. I dealt with a Police Tactcial unit which thought the POI would be the same at 100yds on 4X as at 20yds on 1X. Of course this is impossible. Using the BDC hash marks on the DR reticle and doing a chart for 1X & 4X with your duty load will allow the user to learn the POI at differnet magnification and distance.
I have not had any empirical data or reports that were submitted to ELCAN from Military or LE users to support loss of zero on these current generation DR's.
Let's be clear though, I don't work for them, I'm not endorsing their products. They wanted independent controlled testing and that is what they are getting. I use and love ACOG, there are certain benefits to fixed power scopes for some work. I also have many Leup Mk 4 and have really liked the 1.5 - 5 with SPR reticle. I use aimpoint on a dedicated SBR and find strengths and weaknesses in all of these optics.
I was in the CF during transition from C1 to C7 and used the C79. It was not my cup of tea for mount and weight issues. Please do not misunderstand my defence of the DR as partisan blind support, but my experience as an instructor and end user professionally of firearms and optics over the past 25 years has led me to believe that opinions are formed faster than skills, and often last longer.
I am by no means definitive as "final authority" on anything, but I have kept good company with Elite Military and LE Units over the years and been able to work and train with many of them. Every one has opinions, likes and dislikes but if there is factual deficiency with the DR and a "Unit" had wide spread issues I would like to speak with them and gather the input for my report.
Best Regards,
Pete

 

[FPembleton]

I too had heard of the mount issue which is why I am in the testing process for them.

No matter what they do with the design of the mount, ARMS levers are ARMS levers, and nothing will ever fix that deficiency short of adopting a better means of rail attachment!