Wondering if anyone has personal experience with an Elcan Specter 1x-4x? I was thinking of getting one for a 556 16" barrel
- Thread starter MrMosinNagant
- Start date
The only thing I don't like about them is the fixed eye relief and "proper" cheek weld every time even on one power. I got spoiled by Aimpoints where as long as you can put the dot on target it's good enough.
I like the Elcan better than the typical 1-4 LPVO because how often do you really use anything but 1 or 4? Although I have to admit that I purchased a Nightforce 1-4 instead of a Spectre because I thought the weight difference was more than it was.
I like the Elcan better than the typical 1-4 LPVO because how often do you really use anything but 1 or 4? Although I have to admit that I purchased a Nightforce 1-4 instead of a Spectre because I thought the weight difference was more than it was.
No diopter adjustment... but i like how easy it is to switch magnification.. but the lack of diopter adjustment kept me from buying one for my self.
The glass quality is right up there with acogs. I sold my 7.62 reticle'd elcan on here awhile back for one reason, and only one reason - it's heft! That thing was a bear to place on a designated ar10/scar17 in my opinion.
For the price I paid for my elcan, you can get a quality 1-6x/1-10x. The prism and switching was nice, but it did not make for the weight and bulk. The mounting system was subpar in my opinion as well. I had the gen2 latch.
For the price I paid for my elcan, you can get a quality 1-6x/1-10x. The prism and switching was nice, but it did not make for the weight and bulk. The mounting system was subpar in my opinion as well. I had the gen2 latch.
mine lived on 4x but the glass is good, illumination is nice, reticle etc. It's a nice scope just heavy and expensive. I think now days you can get better bang for your buck. Killed a bunch of hogs with mine but so does the vx3 I have so that's not a good reason hah
I have one and love it. I wouldn't run one in the sandbox but glass is good, and the switch from 1X to 4X is an awesome feature in my estimation. With significant time behind it, I love mine. True, it isn't as easy to get behind as an Aimpoint and isn't as forgiving in head position as a Gen2 razor 1-6X or like, but for what it does well, it does very very well.
Not cheap, not light, but a great optic for many applications.
Not cheap, not light, but a great optic for many applications.
Piss Poor Mount, Shifting Zero when changing magnifications, Heavy as shit, expensive, bad eye relief.
If it was 1995, It would be cutting edge. S&B Shortdot not only beat them to market by years, but was and is a significantly better optic.
They have good glass and a nice dot which is why people who don't shoot much like them. Oh and they had to be hardened to survive the MK17 so they are pretty "robust as long as the mount doesn't sheer off.
In 2020 We have so many good LPV's now such as the G3 Razor, ATACR8 and S&B CC Dual (Even if they stole the design from USO, I remmeber years ago watching the S&B people finger fucking the USO 1-8 at shot show trying to figured out how they did it) they are not even worth considering.
If it was 1995, It would be cutting edge. S&B Shortdot not only beat them to market by years, but was and is a significantly better optic.
They have good glass and a nice dot which is why people who don't shoot much like them. Oh and they had to be hardened to survive the MK17 so they are pretty "robust as long as the mount doesn't sheer off.
In 2020 We have so many good LPV's now such as the G3 Razor, ATACR8 and S&B CC Dual (Even if they stole the design from USO, I remmeber years ago watching the S&B people finger fucking the USO 1-8 at shot show trying to figured out how they did it) they are not even worth considering.
Use them a lot for work. There are much better options, especially for the price.
I get Elcan envy every once in a while and shoot my friend's rifle with one.... Then I look at the price, weight, bulk and fall in love with my ACOG all over again.
For a battle proven sight it's hard to beat an ACOG... The Elcan is close and I think it has a better field of view and probably better glass... But it's not better enough to justify the expense and bulk.
For competition, at close and distant targets, where you may want variable power, there are better scopes.
For ease of use in all conditions I prefer the ACOG
For a battle proven sight it's hard to beat an ACOG... The Elcan is close and I think it has a better field of view and probably better glass... But it's not better enough to justify the expense and bulk.
For competition, at close and distant targets, where you may want variable power, there are better scopes.
For ease of use in all conditions I prefer the ACOG
The Elcan's weight is in line with 1-4x LPVOs when the mount is included. To demonstrate this...
The weight of the current gen 1/4x SpecterDR is 21.9 ounces. The Scalarworks standard cowitness LEAP is the lightest QD 30mm mount I'm aware of, at 5.5 ounces.
S&B 1.1-4x ShortDot: 20.4+5.5 = 25.9 ounces
Steiner P4Xi: 17.3+5.5 = 22.8 ounces
Trijicon Credo 1-4x: 17.1+5.5 = 22.6 ounces
Nightforce NXS 1-4x: 17.0+5.5 = 22.5 ounces
Trijicon Accupower 1-4x: 16.2+5.5 = 21.7 ounces
If you don't like the Scalarworks mount you can substitute a Bobro QD or something along the lines, which adds around another 2 ounces.
Reports of zero shift between 1x and 4x likely stem from the first gen models which did not have detents to lock the internal demagnifier into place consistently. I haven't heard of any reliable reports of this occurring in recent generations; in fact BigJimFish's review 9 years back didn't find any zero shift that couldn't be user attributed. He actually noted a greater change in POI with most of the conventional LPVOs he'd reviewed. I hadn't been able to discern any myself after a couple hours looking for it, though I don't have a locking rest to test it in.
Do note that the parallax settings are different on 1x and 4x, this coupled with the proportional magnification of parallax offset with higher zoom levels means that the location of the dot/POA can change between zoom levels if you are not exactly centered. This is however would also be true with other fixed parallax scopes.
If you have difficulties with eye relief, move the scope back on your rail. If you have a rear flip-up sight, move it in front of the Elcan, it still works. Also make sure that your eye relief point is in fact correct in the first place, many of the people I hand the Elcan to initially look at it from too far way (and also, amusingly enough, frequently begin by looking through the wrong end).
The factory ARMS levers are understandably unimpressive, but can be upgraded to the Mk2 levers, which I believe first came out around 2010. They cost about $30 for a pair & increase weight about by about 0.1 ounces (I actually measured), a small price to pay if you ask me.
It might be noted that the Elcan continues to be adopted today, the Danish and Australian military being the latest ones I'm aware of to award it the contract for new standard issue optic. Now widespread military adoption doesn't necessarily indicate something is stellar by any means - but it does evidence that it's likely to be adequate and at least mildly competitive. (Interesting friend-of-a-friend anecdote, a nearby police department allegedly issues it to their Triarc-barrel fitted SWAT rifles. Not sure that's the most efficient use of property taxes but the guy who relayed that information apparently loves it.)
The weight of the current gen 1/4x SpecterDR is 21.9 ounces. The Scalarworks standard cowitness LEAP is the lightest QD 30mm mount I'm aware of, at 5.5 ounces.
S&B 1.1-4x ShortDot: 20.4+5.5 = 25.9 ounces
Steiner P4Xi: 17.3+5.5 = 22.8 ounces
Trijicon Credo 1-4x: 17.1+5.5 = 22.6 ounces
Nightforce NXS 1-4x: 17.0+5.5 = 22.5 ounces
Trijicon Accupower 1-4x: 16.2+5.5 = 21.7 ounces
If you don't like the Scalarworks mount you can substitute a Bobro QD or something along the lines, which adds around another 2 ounces.
Reports of zero shift between 1x and 4x likely stem from the first gen models which did not have detents to lock the internal demagnifier into place consistently. I haven't heard of any reliable reports of this occurring in recent generations; in fact BigJimFish's review 9 years back didn't find any zero shift that couldn't be user attributed. He actually noted a greater change in POI with most of the conventional LPVOs he'd reviewed. I hadn't been able to discern any myself after a couple hours looking for it, though I don't have a locking rest to test it in.
Do note that the parallax settings are different on 1x and 4x, this coupled with the proportional magnification of parallax offset with higher zoom levels means that the location of the dot/POA can change between zoom levels if you are not exactly centered. This is however would also be true with other fixed parallax scopes.
If you have difficulties with eye relief, move the scope back on your rail. If you have a rear flip-up sight, move it in front of the Elcan, it still works. Also make sure that your eye relief point is in fact correct in the first place, many of the people I hand the Elcan to initially look at it from too far way (and also, amusingly enough, frequently begin by looking through the wrong end).
The factory ARMS levers are understandably unimpressive, but can be upgraded to the Mk2 levers, which I believe first came out around 2010. They cost about $30 for a pair & increase weight about by about 0.1 ounces (I actually measured), a small price to pay if you ask me.
It might be noted that the Elcan continues to be adopted today, the Danish and Australian military being the latest ones I'm aware of to award it the contract for new standard issue optic. Now widespread military adoption doesn't necessarily indicate something is stellar by any means - but it does evidence that it's likely to be adequate and at least mildly competitive. (Interesting friend-of-a-friend anecdote, a nearby police department allegedly issues it to their Triarc-barrel fitted SWAT rifles. Not sure that's the most efficient use of property taxes but the guy who relayed that information apparently loves it.)
Last edited:
Interesting, I sold my k16i mounted on a hunter series spuhr (total weight 22oz) for a 7.62 reticle 1/4 elcan (23.2oz). I don't really notice the 1.2oz ounce weight difference, but then again I regularly lift at the gym.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,866
- 18,152
Put one on my Scar16 just because I walked into one cheap(ish) from a buddy. Wouldn’t do it again, and the only reason it stays on is just the “look” factor. Truth be told, I don’t even really shoot the scar anymore either.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,866
- 18,152
I honestly liked the idea of it. Practically speaking, I don’t care for the eye relief or bulk of it. As far as issues with zero shift, I never played with it enough to pay attention to that. I blasted big targets at relatively close distance. To be fair, I don’t like the acog either, and I think it all boils down to eye relief. The scar is somewhat forgiving as it is adjustable to make it easier to deal with, so that is a plus and probably why it stays where it is. My buddy had it on his ar15 and it just wasn’t the same useable piece of kit it was in the scar due to less flexibility.
If you have the latest version, it should weigh only 21.9 ounces. The CR2032 battery switch saves a little bit of weight.
I measured mine at 626.8 grams; that was with the larger Mk2 ARMS levers and a battery (adds about 3 grams) installed.
Have you tried moving the Elcan all the way back on your rail? Aim to move the optic to your eye rather than moving your eye to the optic.
Unless you have a particularly long length of pull (past the 4th stock position on an AR with a SOPMOD, or fully extended with a waffle stock) the rifle should have enough rail space to position the Elcan where the eye relief feels comfortable.
I know it's a little off topic, but how did you like the Kahles? I'm juggling that exact scope against the Elcan. Do you prefer the Elcan?
Are you referring to the eye relief, as in the distance you need to be from the scope to get full FoV, or eyebox, the side-to-side and up-to-down forgiveness?
The eye relief distance is 2.76", exactly as listed on the spec sheet. It does not change from 1x to 4x, though it does become a bit less forgiving of error when you increase magnification.
Please note that, when an optic's eye relief measurement is provided, this does not mean that all of the area in between that distance and the ocular will provide a full FoV; it merely states the optimal distance for your eye to be. Getting too close can reduce FoV just as moving too far away will. The eye relief "range" where you get your optimal FoV and eyebox profile seems to be about 0.5-0.75" long on the 1x mode, starting at around 2.2" away and ending around 2.9".
The eyebox is about 22-23mm from side to side on 1x mode. On 4x it shrinks only slightly, to about 20-21mm or so. The 4x eyebox is quite impressive as low power variable scopes go and actually better than the 3x on a 3-15x PST Gen II medium power scope. I would call the 1x merely large, comparable to but a bit bigger than a Razor or K16i's. (Seems to be about on par with the ATACR actually, albeit I haven't looked through that scope in real life.)
Note though that this requires you to be within the proper eye relief range, being slightly too far away will result in a significantly smaller eyebox. Moving even further away will mostly restore the eyebox, but at this point you will be getting noticeable scope shadow.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,866
- 18,152
I have it all the way back on the scar now. Well as far back as possible without removing the irons. I’ve played with it and acogs for many years, and never cared for acogs while in service. I usually requested an M68 and have up the acog. Personal preference is involved some as well I guess.
Loved them to the point that I owned four of them. The last one is up for sale now. I'm 64 and it just got to the point the reticle no longer worked for me and had the same issues with eye relief and didn't want to remove back-up irons. Super solid but heavy. People complain about the mount, but I never had a zero shift issue. For rifles not with red dots, I switched to LPVOs (ATACR 1-8x and Vortex HD Gen III 1-10x) and on two rifles I also run a red dots at 45%.
If you find the eye relief inconvenient I would strongly suggest removing the rear backup irons and placing them in front on the scope. You can flip them up with the scope attached and still see through them.
This does of course result in reduced usability when the scope is not attached, but you can still shoot with them and I believe primary optic placement takes precedence over backup sighting systems.
I used to run mine this way but found that I actually preferred the eye relief with the scope in front.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,866
- 18,152
I'm not a drug dealer and I gave my reloading equipment to my old man so he had something to do during covid lockdown (if that went over your head, I'm saying I don't have a scale that measures in grams or ounces). I just pulled numbers off eurooptic and did donald duck math.
k16i was the best lpvo I've ever looked through and used until the gen III razor was released. I exchanged the k16i for an elcan because I SBRed my scar 17 because I don't shoot past 600yards with it, I wanted to try something different, and I like the aesthetic of the elcan on the scar more than the k16i.
Anyone who refers to the 1/4 as heavy compared to a 1-4/6/8/10 lpvo is a fucking smooth brain.
Just reread the thread and not a single person asserted an Elcan is "heavy" COMPARED to an LPVO. The one post addressing comparative weights noted most LVPO with mounts weigh more. The LPVO offers a lot, which is why they are selling like hotcakes and has led many shooters to conclude the ADDED weight of one is worth it for THEIR applications. I won't call you "smooth brain" as most of the poor kids with that tragic genetic affliction die by 10 years old.
Last edited:
For you guys advocating for the elcan, what does it offer that is better than modern LVPOs? If they were better, pro 3 gun shooters, and SMUs would use them. We have them in SOF, but they are old and are in the process of being replaced by LVPOs. Your money is much better spent on a good LVPO, like a 1-6 razor or similar. I think the only reason guys spend the money they do on them, is because of its use in SOF.
The things that attract me to them are true 1x, better FOV, the ability to more quickly switch between a red dot on 1x and a reticle on 4x faster than a LPVO without having a big throw lever in the way, and durability. And because I'm not willing to throw the coin for a S&B Shortdot. But I don't own a LPVO or an Elcan, so this is pure armchair speculation, and I'm glad to have opinions from both sides of the isle to help my decision
I have a razor 1-6 on my personal gun, and an elcan on my work gun. I much prefer the razor and use it when I deploy. The elcan isn't a bad optic, but like I said before - for the price, you're better served with a quality LVPO.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,866
- 18,152
I had an LPVO on the scar for a while I can say it was much more streamlined than the elcan. I had flip flopped between a Sig Tango6, and an SMRS ii Pro for a minute. I ended up placing the SMRS ii on another short range gun and the elcan defaulted back to the scar just to have a home. If I actually used the scar much, it would get a 1-4/6/8 just to have some more flexibility in power settings. I’m sure the elcan will alway have a following for the clone guys just as @DeadZeppelin said.
Just sold my fourth and last Elcan. The tech. evolves.
I suspect that the Elcan's reputation as a military rather than a gamer optic coupled with its high entry cost, lack of really concerted marketing, and the plethora of outdated criticisms/misconceptions have played a large part in its lack of gaming popularity. It's also not as well known as you might think; a lot of the people I've talked to didn't even know what it was, but all of them probably knew about the Vortex Razor.
I expect that you wouldn't see a lot of S&B ShortDot PMII Dual CC 1-8, VCOG 1-8, or Leupold Mk6 in competition either, but that doesn't make them inviable optics.
The other part of this is that 3 gun isn't always a perfect translation for practical use. One person who had used it for 3 gun said it worked great for close range but the lower zoom and lack of transition between zoom levels meant that you could lose track of a particular target when you had a bunch of them right next to each other at long range. Presumably people don't line up like this in actual combat (and if they do, that's probably a good thing).
Introducing options will naturally decrease the usage of the existing optic simply due to varying preferences. If your only variable optic for 10 years were Razors, many of them a generation out of date, and then you introduced current gen Elcans as the new and improved thing, my guess is you'd also see a significant drop in the number of people using Razors.
I could further speculate about the seeming resurgence of marksmanship culture in the US military, or aforementioned potentially inaccurate perceptions, but I don't think people would be overly interested in listening to my armchair conjecture.
As for why I bought it, I actually gave its military usage little consideration. My reasons for preferring it are rather:
- Long battery life. You can just leave it on all the time.
- Large eyebox with almost no decrease in eyebox size and light transmission from 1x to 4x. I'm not currently aware of any other high quality low power optic with that capability.
- Class leading FoV
- Relatively light weight for its durability
- Nuclear bright dot setting, reportedly about on par with the NX8 (i.e. probably better than even most other daylight bright LPVOs)
- Seems to have a "truer" 1x? Less image shift and false magnification, possibly due to the shorter length and external adjustment system. For the record I'm not the only one to report this.
- Fast & simple magnification switch
- Compact size. This also helps with the weight aspect as it shifts the center of balance back on the rail which tends to result in better handling vs LPVOs
- Full reticle illumination. I used to think little of this but when I tried looking around with it at night in a built up area I realized there was often enough artificial lighting to get a decent look at targets but not enough to see the BDC well. The reticle illumination was a big upgrade.
Last edited:
I just picked up a new Elcan 1/4 at a steal and for the short amount of time with it
I’m impressed. The image on 1x and 4x is amazing, widest FOV and nuclear bright setting makes it almost as quick on short range targets as my AMG Huey.
I’ve got a Cronus BTR 1-6 that is a nice LPVO and the new Razor Gen III 1-10.
If it was short to mid range use only, I would prob stick to the Elcan because of the FOV and with practice you can transition from 1-4x fast. The rear to forward movement with the hand ending up in the proper place is so much quicker than coming over the LPVO scopes to adjust power. The Cronus 1-6 was one of the last FFP 1-6 before they changed it to SFP, and the reticle just works. For 1-6x it’s pretty nice.
But the Gen III razor is very impressive in all ways and if your going to be out midrange or longer, it’s not even a competition. I like everything about the Gen III so much more
Than the NF 2.5-10x42 I sold the NF. And that reticle is nuclear
.I just don’t want to see the S&B shorty CC 1-8. If it’s everything I’ve heard it is, I might have to sell a few toys.
I’m impressed. The image on 1x and 4x is amazing, widest FOV and nuclear bright setting makes it almost as quick on short range targets as my AMG Huey.
I’ve got a Cronus BTR 1-6 that is a nice LPVO and the new Razor Gen III 1-10.
If it was short to mid range use only, I would prob stick to the Elcan because of the FOV and with practice you can transition from 1-4x fast. The rear to forward movement with the hand ending up in the proper place is so much quicker than coming over the LPVO scopes to adjust power. The Cronus 1-6 was one of the last FFP 1-6 before they changed it to SFP, and the reticle just works. For 1-6x it’s pretty nice.
But the Gen III razor is very impressive in all ways and if your going to be out midrange or longer, it’s not even a competition. I like everything about the Gen III so much more
Than the NF 2.5-10x42 I sold the NF. And that reticle is nuclear
.I just don’t want to see the S&B shorty CC 1-8. If it’s everything I’ve heard it is, I might have to sell a few toys.In the past twelve months I’ve owned two nightforce nxs c599’s, a g3 razor, and an elcan 1/4.I like everything about the Gen III so much more
Than the NF 2.5-10x42 I sold the NF. And that reticle is nuclear
The elcan dot was basically as bright as the Nx8 but the g3 (in all fairness—same as the atacr) is not on the same level.
The Nx8 is the only lpvo I’ve ever seen that I could legit call nuclear bright aka aimpoint bright.
I had an elcan for about two weeks. It’s a cool optic for sure. Hell it was the optic of the bougalou movement.
if that thing would have had .5” more of eye relief I’d have kept it.
Killer #1–The eye relief was the real killer. It’s not ACOG bad, but it’s not razor/atacr good.
Killer#2—my gen 3 unit was produced in 2009. I ain’t good at math but a one year warranty isn’t doing me much good now. For a hundred or two bucks more the g3 razor/c599/atacr makes more sense in this regard.
Killer #3–I never did any serious testing but I have little faith in the upgraded mk2 arms levers. Sure they’re an improvement but there’s a reason people aren’t outfitting their rifles with arms mounts these days. Totally outdated.
Best solution for the same price? Nightforce C599 w/ Buis or gen2e w/buis.
if that thing would have had .5” more of eye relief I’d have kept it.
Killer #1–The eye relief was the real killer. It’s not ACOG bad, but it’s not razor/atacr good.
Killer#2—my gen 3 unit was produced in 2009. I ain’t good at math but a one year warranty isn’t doing me much good now. For a hundred or two bucks more the g3 razor/c599/atacr makes more sense in this regard.
Killer #3–I never did any serious testing but I have little faith in the upgraded mk2 arms levers. Sure they’re an improvement but there’s a reason people aren’t outfitting their rifles with arms mounts these days. Totally outdated.
Best solution for the same price? Nightforce C599 w/ Buis or gen2e w/buis.
You make some good points, a few things I hadn't thought about. Like I said, it's not a bad optic, however I still think for the money you spend on one, there are better options out there. Though I'm sure you'll still enjoy yours.
Ok time to revive this thread with some questions I had on a different post.
I recently got a new AR (LWRC DI) and I purchased an acog 3.5 LED .223 horseshoe reticle with a RMR on top as it’s designated sight, I have shot with it about 4 times now (it’s hot AF in Las Vegas) and I love it. That being said I can’t seem to get used to the idea of the RMR and honestly I have never used it other than zeroing it. Taking my face off the stock to jump on the RMR seems alien to me and can’t really shoot comfortably, and no I am not interested on a 45 degree mount either.
So I have been looking at te Elcan 1-4x to solve this issue, I like the way you can switch from 1-4 easily without breaking cheek placement and most things I have read and seen are positive. I know there’s complaints about weight and price but those things aren’t an issue to me. I would like to hear opinions from members that have had experience with both these sights, I also understand the argument that these guys are old technology and for the price point there’s better and newer things out there, like many LPVO’s but I have owned a few and am not Interested in going back to that.
I have heard complaints about the zero shift when switching magnification on the Elcan but this seems to have been resolved with newer generations, can anyone verify this?
I recently got a new AR (LWRC DI) and I purchased an acog 3.5 LED .223 horseshoe reticle with a RMR on top as it’s designated sight, I have shot with it about 4 times now (it’s hot AF in Las Vegas) and I love it. That being said I can’t seem to get used to the idea of the RMR and honestly I have never used it other than zeroing it. Taking my face off the stock to jump on the RMR seems alien to me and can’t really shoot comfortably, and no I am not interested on a 45 degree mount either.
So I have been looking at te Elcan 1-4x to solve this issue, I like the way you can switch from 1-4 easily without breaking cheek placement and most things I have read and seen are positive. I know there’s complaints about weight and price but those things aren’t an issue to me. I would like to hear opinions from members that have had experience with both these sights, I also understand the argument that these guys are old technology and for the price point there’s better and newer things out there, like many LPVO’s but I have owned a few and am not Interested in going back to that.
I have heard complaints about the zero shift when switching magnification on the Elcan but this seems to have been resolved with newer generations, can anyone verify this?
Similar threads
