Looking for a quality optic that will allow me CQB and shots to 500 for my AR. Mainly for 3 gun shoots but want out the door quality and durability.
Looking for input from those of you who have had both optics at one time and another. Daytime brightness for CQB a MUST.
At this point I believe I might be favoring the new Elcan SpecterDR. Mainly because it has the BDC style reticle assuming its close and accurate in its drop. My concern is that I have heard that there are issues or concerns more with the mount and the external adjustments rather than the optic itself? Would we class the Elcan as a first focal plane style optic? In other words when on 1x AND 4x is the BDC correct?
I know the S&B is quality all the way but to my knowledge there is no built in BDC but rather ballistic cams which can be dialed to match the distance. I’m looking for something faster than dialing even though I realize it’s more accurate.
I’m ready to cry once and hopefully buy just once. I would like to get this one right. Thoughts and comments, I’m listening.
Don’t forget that you can easily remember mil-holds and use them for hold over (and under, if you get into longer range stuff).
The Short Dot “dot” is only rivaled by the PR 1-8 in intensity, but does obscure a lot of target at long range and when shooting small targets at midrange if using a POI hold.
The ELCAN optic issues have been essentially fixed. Still using integral ARMS mounts, so they will continue to have problems holding/retaining zero until they wake up and knock that crap off. POI shift remains, partially because of the nature of how the device is constructed, more often due to nitwits that can’t RTFM and decide it’s okay to zero it in 1x at the distance of their choice.
On that note, the S&B Zenith Short Dot LE (2nd focal plane) is now availible with the P3 standard mil-dot reticle, so now you can get a Short Dot with a ranging type reticle, and being second focal, the dot doesn’t get huge. IIRC correctly, its about 1.5 MOA at 4x.
I’m of the opinion that BDCs are great for issued weapons with a fixed ammo supply. As such, I would take a ranging reticle over a BDC, and learn my holds with what type of ammo i’m shooting.
I found a spec on Elcan’s website which listed coaxial alignment for the Specter, meaning the tolerance of the shift between 1x and 4x.
This was back in March or so when I found it, and it isn’t listed anymore on their site. But there are a few different websites covering the Specter, one from Rayetheon, one from Elcan and a dedicated Specter DR site. So it’s a little confusing.
S&B almost has the same thing going, with a English site of S&B America, a German site and a Hungarian site. In an email from Mark Cromwell, he told me the German site lists the most current specs for the Zenith LE. It’s worth noting that the German site lists the LE as being had with the CQB reticle, but the most current data sheet lists the FD2 FD7 and P3.
Granted, as another posted had pointed out in that thread, it was less than the MOA value of the dot. By the nature of it’s design, using a prism assembly for magnification changes, I think this will always be there. To the degree it would effect the shooter is debateable.
Played with the Swaro but its not front focal plane. Not sure how robust it is at this point either. The illumination switch is pretty cool!
For pretty much the same money as the Elcan and S&B just dont trust the Swaro, or it hasnt proven itself yet at least to me as a combat optic.
Need to get behind a Short Dot so if any of my Ohio brothers want to share some range time please chime in if you have one you wouldn’t mind showing off.
I understand. I have used the Swaro as a patrol rifle optic and as a three gun optic with no issues with durability. I kind of like the second focal plane but others do not. My roomate has an Elcan and its a nice optic as well.
Pat
For a 1-4 or a 1-6x I don’t think being first focal is as important as if it were say, a 3-9x or like scope.
You can’t really range at 1x, and at the distances one would use a 1x, under 300 yards, and reallistically if you have a 1-4x probably under 100 yards, ballistic drop is typically within the MOA of the reticle.
With a 3-9x or really any more mid-range to long-range optic, I think first focal reticles are the way to go.
Once you spend some time with a FFP reticle you would understand.
No reason why if you can see it you cant shoot at it. Hitting and seeing a man size target is not an issue for me provided I know or have some accurate refrence on where to hold. No issue with an Aimpoint to 200-250 with 5.56. After that its a guessing game for me on the hold. How much is about that much?
I do know from long range shooting experience that having those little lines in the scope be the same or mean the same thing no matter what the magnification is of great value. Doing the math at times, especially when time is at a premium, hurts my head!
Do you have any experience with either of the two optics in question?
After that its a guessing game for me on the hold. How much is about that much?
I do know from long range shooting experience that having those little lines in the scope be the same or mean the same thing no matter what the magnification is of great value. Doing the math at times, especially when time is at a premium, hurts my head!
Do you have any experience with either of the two optics in question?
Which is kind of my point. At 200-300 yards, if you have the ability, you would be on 4x. Or, you can dial elevation with a BDC cam.
Its very hard to read range at 1x. Its hard at 4x for that matter, its not like its a 10x or 25x scope. As to the math, the mil-dot master is amazing if you have the time to employ it.
Just a older gen I S&B short dot, and I have one of the updated Zenith LEs (w P3 ret) on order. I find the features of the Elcan very intresting, but I don’t have the balls to plop down $1800 on something with that questionable of a history.
The value of a FFP optic isn’t lost on me, I just think its better suited for higher power optics, ie not 1-4x scopes.
On low power scopes I prefer the second focal plane. Here is my reason. If the target is so far I need to use a hold over I need to be at max magnification anyway. A second benefit to the second focal plane is the reticle appears larger on lower power making it faster to use. My 1.5 moa reticle at 6x takes up 9 inches on 1x making it fast for CQB type work. Best of both worlds. Now if you are shooting a precision rifle at extreme range a first focal plane makes more sense.
I strongly considered the short dot but went with the Swarovski due to it having 6x on the top end. On some long targets in three gun 4x seem just a little bit under powered. I am happy with my choice.
Pat
