Lets Talk Elcan Optics

I have the SpecterDR 1-4x. From my perspective / experience, here are the pro`s and cons.

Pro`s`:
- Glass is incredibly clear. Wow. Field of view crisp.
- Flexibility. Flip from 1x to 4x on the fly. Good for going from CQB to longer range.....if you need that some of flexibility.
- Quick connect / disconnect mount - it`s fast to install
- Reticle - I like it.
- Looks cool! :)

Con`s:
- Its an all purpose optic. So there are some drawbacks. Main one......it`s heavy (1.4 lbs). You are carrying that magnification capability constantly on your rifle.
- I`ve had some issues mounting it on a Bushmaster ACR. In the end I think the issue was my ACR rail is undermin to spec. No issues mounting it to my PWS AR.
- Not sure I like the spring loaded external to the optic elevation system.
- Protective caps did not come with the optic. At that price they should come with the optic.

I actually ended up sending the optic back for inspection to Elcan because of the fit with my ACR issue. I was pleased with their support / customer service. They converted the optic to have the adjustable lever arms.

I was thinking about selling it. I have decided to keep it. Its now on my PWS AR.

In hindsight, I wish I had purchased the 1-6X model. But another $800 on a $2000+ optic.....ugggg. Not cheap.

My 2 cents.

Graveman
 
The 1.5-6x is even bigger and heavier if you think the 1-4x is heavy. You have to compare the weight of Specter to another scope WITH the scope mount. My 1-4x NF with Larue mount is just as heavy.
 
I should mention that my pet 69gr load matches 62gr M855 drop wise but groups better and drifts a little less which is why I use it and will continue to use it.
 
well i have browe, trijicons, aimpoints, eotechs xps and elcan specterdr, all of them are top combat role optics. the elcan has the best glass with browe and acog a very close second, but the center black dot on the elcan is 1.5 moa, so realistically you will not shoot better than 1.5 moa with it no matter what your rifle can do.

the best my tavor was able to shoot repeatably is 1.5 moa, so therefore the specterdr is on it.

my acr has the acog crosshair 4x, it was supposed to hold the browe but the acr rail is not to spec. I can shoot under 1.5 moa with that acr with hornady vmax, so the elcan is not a good optic for that rifle.

my colt 6920 has the aimpoint 4moa that will be a cqb rifle, i need it light.

my colt canada sa15.7 will have the xps and g33 id like to do 3 gun and tacrifle with it

my cz858 has my trijicon rmr 4moa because that rifle shoots 4 moa anyway, its 762x39 what do you expect...

my browe 4x currently has no home but im planning a dd mk12 or a colt canada sa20 DMR build and that will be its home.

for finding the red dot quickest and field of view the eotechs win it.

So... What I am saying is that you need an optic that matches the rifles capabilities and your intended role.
 
Last edited:
I user the DR because it the only red dot thats not blurry...

Eotech look like sh!t because of my astigmatism.

Currently saving up for a 2nd DR for my C8IUR :)
 
The clarity of the DR is so good, it's like looking through a higher magnification scope. I can see better at 100yds on 4x than lesser scopes on 7x. People dog on the weight, but when you add mounts to something comparable (not that there is much comparable) the weight isn't that much different. Given the optic is rated to 3600G's of shock, the weight is being used to increase it's durability. Are there better usage specific options for certain types of shooting? Indeed, but it's hard to beat the DR for versatility.
 
I'm a fan of the OS3B model. Been using it for several years for CQB and SR (10-500m).

I find the internal adjustments intuitive. I have very little experience with external adjustments on other Elcan so I cannot really speak from experience on them.

I like the bold but not over powering reticle but I use the BBC on the dial. BDC reticles don't do it for me. You might like the A model. The BDC dial is true for me with 62 gn ammo to 500m at least. I then made a range chart for short distances (<100yd) that works regardless of bullet weight (all height over bore at short distance, bullet drop is not a big factor here). You could do the same with a BDC reticle as a reminder and way to help you memorize your hold over points.

I have only looked through an OS4, never shot with one but my first impression was that the reticle it was too fine. I really would need to take a sight picture at range in Crappy light conditions to really say for sure. GL says he likes his and, well, he has just a bit more experience than me.

The OS3 is robust too. 1m drop in to concrete caused no problem with the scope (caused me to swear a lot and panic a bit though)
 
Thanks for the info, the discussion about the reticles is interesting.

I know what you mean Bolivar, if I drop my tough phone it makes me cringe even though I know it is OK. Although dropping a rifle and optic likely worth upwards of 3gs would probably make me swear a bit haha
 
Bolivar said:
I have only looked through an OS4, never shot with one but my first impression was that the reticle it was too fine. I really would need to take a sight picture at range in Crappy light conditions to really say for sure. GL says he likes his and, well, he has just a bit more experience than me.
Click to expand...

The reticle in the OS4 I had back in September is not available on the commercial market. It was very, very fine and not duplexed so it was often hard (slow) to pick up. I am now running an OS4 with the commercially available SFOV4-C1 ballistic crosshair reticle, and think it is a far better reticle.
 
Dr 1 to 4 no problems on acr rail. I cant find any cons other than price. Next purchase is the 1.5 to 6x
 
jparent said:
Given the optic is rated to 3600G's of shock, the weight is being used to increase it's durability.
Click to expand...

While I agree Elcan's products are great, I was curious where you found the listing for such a high G force rating.

I'm only able to confirm 450G's for an Elcan Dr's max. G force rating along with the same rating for some of their set power optics they offer too.

Cheers D
 
I wouldn't use "g-force" rating as a means of comparing the durability of an optic. First of all, a g is not a force, it's an acceleration. More importantly, a single number describing shock resistance is quite ambiguous since shock loads contain a range of frequencies over which the load is distributed and not many of those frequencies contribute significantly to the response of the object (scope in this case). So, a shock load of some very high acceleration amplitude (450 g's for example) is likely at a frequency so high that it doesn't produce any significant response in the optic, whereas a lower frequency acceleration say, with a 10 g amplitude might damage the optic.
 
Interesting Slippery_Pete, it's over my head, but I'll just say I was retaking the 450G's from Elcan's own environmental shock rating listed with the optic's spec's.

It is interesting to hear that an object confronted with say a 10g shock load could actually be damaged more then the same object if subjected to say a 100G shock loading due to these frequencies you speak of.

Would it be safe to say that the optic with the higher shock rating in G's would be more capable of sustaining harder hits w/o incurring damage?

Sorry to get off topic OP.

Cheers D
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily. It depends on how the manufacturers process their shock testing data. If all manufacturers were consistent in how they process their shock testing data, then choosing the optic with the higher g-rating might make sense, but it's not likely that they do. I've found that how you deal with the data from shock testing can affect your conclusions quite a bit. For example, a shock load with a peak acceleration of 90 g's reduced to just 12 g's when I filtered the shock load to isolate the frequencies containing 99% of the energy (the high frequency, ~90 g acceleration was from the response of a lightweight, stiff piece of the structure that moved very little).

One funny way of thinking about it is that if one manufacturer says their product is tested up to 100 g's when they record accelerations at 100 Hz, they could just do the same test again the next year recording at 500 Hz to get an acceleration of say 300 g's and say that their product is now 3 x better than last year!

So, even though comparing the numbers between different manufacturers might not tell you much, the fact that a manufacturer does shock testing at all is a good thing and probably means that they produce more durable optics than those companies that don't do shock testing.

One last thing that might help with my previous post: Think of an opera singer trying to hit the right frequency to cause resonance in a wine glass and break it. It's not the volume (acceleration amplitude) of his/her voice that causes the glass to break. It's the frequency of the note they're singing. Once that matches the natural resonant frequency of the glass , the glass is damaged and breaks.
 
Last edited:
:confused:

I'll concede I'm no expert, but I'm a bit confused as to how your connecting an object being accelerated (be it + or - so to speak) expressed in "g" and introducing a frequency expressed in Hz. I wouldn't be surprised if they test to see how a scope withstands impact through something like a drop test and also vibration, but I'd assume they are two different tests. I see the merits of vibrating the crap out of a scope as part of the testing (I've ridden around in tracks...), but I fail to see how are they connected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom