View Full Version : Short DOT or ELCAN
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.
If you are going to spend that kind of money go with the Short Dot. The Elcan has some issues.
Just out of curiosity, what are the issues with the Elcan? For the $$$ they're charging, I for one would hope that there wouldn't be any. :confused:
The older ELCAN Specter DRs had issues in retaining/shifting zero due to the adjustment methods. They have been fixed in the later models.
Failure2Stop
08-03-11, 11:59
Short Dot
Short Dot
Short Dot
Short Dot
Short Dot
Don't forget that you can easily remember mil-holds and use them for hold over (and under, if you get into longer range stuff).
The Short Dot "dot" is only rivaled by the PR 1-8 in intensity, but does obscure a lot of target at long range and when shooting small targets at midrange if using a POI hold.
The ELCAN optic issues have been essentially fixed. Still using integral ARMS mounts, so they will continue to have problems holding/retaining zero until they wake up and knock that crap off. POI shift remains, partially because of the nature of how the device is constructed, more often due to nitwits that can't RTFM and decide it's okay to zero it in 1x at the distance of their choice.
Between the two...Short Dot.
Short Dot
Short Dot
Short Dot
Short Dot
Short Dot
Don't forget that you can easily remember mil-holds and use them for hold over (and under, if you get into longer range stuff).
The Short Dot "dot" is only rivaled by the PR 1-8 in intensity, but does obscure a lot of target at long range and when shooting small targets at midrange if using a POI hold.
On that note, the S&B Zenith Short Dot LE (2nd focal plane) is now availible with the P3 standard mil-dot reticle, so now you can get a Short Dot with a ranging type reticle, and being second focal, the dot doesn't get huge. IIRC correctly, its about 1.5 MOA at 4x.
I'm of the opinion that BDCs are great for issued weapons with a fixed ammo supply. As such, I would take a ranging reticle over a BDC, and learn my holds with what type of ammo i'm shooting.
Just out of curiosity, what are the issues with the Elcan? For the $$$ they're charging, I for one would hope that there wouldn't be any. :confused:
I've heard it does not hold zero from 1x to 4x magnification.
Putting in yet another vote for the Short Dot.
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.
Alaskapopo
08-03-11, 13:46
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.
Both are very good also consider the Swarovski Z6i 1-6x scope with the BRT reticle. I love it and its used by a lot of the top dogs in Three gun.
Pat
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.
There was a similar discussion a bit ago. It might be helpful to you.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=82283
Alaskapopo
08-03-11, 17:29
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
Been really happy with my elcan. Used it from 5 meters out to 700 meters with no issues....
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.
bp
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.
Alaskapopo
08-03-11, 21:18
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
Magic_Salad0892
08-04-11, 06:17
Short Dots, ACOGs, and Elcans come at the same price point, more or less.
Go Short Dot. Or ACOG, and train more.
How is a $1,000-1,700 ACOG at the same price point as a Short Dot at $2200-2700?
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
i feel like this makes a lot of sense, is there some intermediate range where one might want accurate use of the ranging reticle but might not require a full 6x?
i can see this philosophy being the rule for a 4x, but at 6x could the image at an intermediate range get too big at full magnification?
Alaskapopo
08-04-11, 14:54
i feel like this makes a lot of sense, is there some intermediate range where one might want accurate use of the ranging reticle but might not require a full 6x?
i can see this philosophy being the rule for a 4x, but at 6x could the image at an intermediate range get too big at full magnification?
I have got into that very discussion with other three gunners on another forum. I have not found a time where I wanted to use my hold overs that I was not using 6x. But others have apparently.
Pat
Magic_Salad0892
08-05-11, 03:57
How is a $1,000-1,700 ACOG at the same price point as a Short Dot at $2200-2700?
I paid $2,200 or so for my TA31ECOS-G + RMR.
I had the Elcan Specter DR. It was fantastic. I didnt have any of the mount issues or shift issues with it. I have also owned a USO SN4 and played with the short dot. What I found was this. If my focus is more on precision Id likely prefer the Short Dot. If my focus is more on speed and combat accuracy, I prefer the Elcan. I prefered it enough that I bought the Elcan again to top my SR25EMC!
I paid $2,200 or so for my TA31ECOS-G + RMR.
How long ago did you get it? I had thought you may have been talking about the ECOS setup, but the high end of retail I've seen for those now is $1,700.
The one thing I always liked about the TA31 was the huge field of view.
Magic_Salad0892
08-05-11, 22:51
How long ago did you get it? I had thought you may have been talking about the ECOS setup, but the high end of retail I've seen for those now is $1,700.
The one thing I always liked about the TA31 was the huge field of view.
A while ago, like 2 years ago, or something.
I have got into that very discussion with other three gunners on another forum. I have not found a time where I wanted to use my hold overs that I was not using 6x. But others have apparently.
Pat
Its quite a bit to try to half everything at 3x huh? I can see that not working well in a iome critical/stessful/exciting moment.
Alaskapopo
08-06-11, 00:06
Its quite a bit to try to half everything at 3x huh? I can see that not working well in a iome critical/stessful/exciting moment.
Actually you double everything at 3x. But anyway its not really critical. Use 6x when things are far away. Thats what I do. I use 1x till 100 yards unless its a small target at 100 yards. I use 3x until 200 yards or so and 6 x past that.
Pat
Actually you double everything at 3x. But anyway its not really critical. Use 6x when things are far away. Thats what I do. I use 1x till 100 yards unless its a small target at 100 yards. I use 3x until 200 yards or so and 6 x past that.
Pat
a separate question.
I know you said that you double everything at half power... i said half i guess because i was referring to the reticle, to get 600 the reference mark would be relocated half way closer to the zero. Is this not a good way to calculate?
I ask because at 3x is the bottom mildot (or whatever ranging reference) accurately double? If it were say 600 would that line then actually faithfully represent poi at 1200? (not that it matters because you cant really see crap at 1200 with 3x).
I guess im trying to figure out if im thinking backwards. I was coming from the perspective of, max range is 600 (just to pick a number) for the bottom part of the reticle, then at 3x that max range has moved to a new line, half way closer to zero. And possibley the other lines that might or might not represent further ranges can be ignored
I use 1x till 100 yards unless its a small target at 100 yards. I use 3x until 200 yards or so and 6 x past that.
Pat
In that case you always have the same holdover at 3x right? I guess its a preference for how one wants to consistently execute.
Alaskapopo
08-06-11, 05:13
In that case you always have the same holdover at 3x right? I guess its a preference for how one wants to consistently execute.
Well I zero so inside of 200 yards I don't have to hold over. Past 200 I am using 6x and then I use my reticle's hold points. So for 200 and less its point and shoot no matter what magnification.
Pat
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/Optics/77grainN135load170yard0.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/Optics/55grainVmax100yard0.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.