Useful

**EX_STAB** · 18-09-2009, 10:41

http://www.elcan.com/ELCAN_News/Bull...eSupplier.html

This came out of the blue to some of us. Thought the Trijicon was a shoe in although this looks neater. Not sure about the windage and elevation drums although it would seem that they are just for zeroing, stadia lines being used for range variation as per Trijicon. Not clear whether the stadia lines are shoulder width as per Trijicon which does seem to be a good idea for quickly getting the range.

What is noteworthy is the lack of a miniature red-dot CQB sight on the top of the unit. The mini red dot strikes me as one of the greatest innovations in snap shooting as well as providing a back up sight.

So, this appears to be the future, anyone got hands on yet?

**EX_STAB** · 18-09-2009, 10:49

http://www.elcan.com/ELCAN_News/Bull...cSheet.web.pdf

Reading further the flat pad on top is for mounting of a miniature red dot so perhaps one will be specified.

Surprisingly, illumination is by battery rather than Tritium. Rated at 300 hours at max brightness. Leave it on and that's a new battery every 12 days..... hmmmm. One more item for the supply chain........

**Dossbag** · 18-09-2009, 11:59

First question that came to mind is 'Why?'

ACOG's work perfectly well and seem to be much liked by all who've used them. This another cost cutting exercise at the expense of capability? Anyone got any prices for one of these compared to an ACOG?

**therealbigdizzle** · 18-09-2009, 12:18

how can you put a price on the ability to hit a cows arse as opposed to not being able to hit a cows arse.

**Kitmarlowe** · 18-09-2009, 13:14

Originally Posted by therealbigdizzle

how can you put a price on the ability to hit a cows arse as opposed to not being able to hit a cows arse.

Quite simply. Does this really represent an improvement over the previous SUSAT? It's field of view is narrower (115.5 mils against 177 mils) but its doesn't give an improvment in power, 4X as opposed to 4x...

I believe this has appeared before and a link to a yank forum was posted where it's readers panned it's stablitly, claiming that the method of attachment give it a massive MOA.....

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=277494

Found it for you.

Best quote

"Most of the sights have the typical Elcan crappy mount shift of 2-3MOA. Then add in the ARMS mount loses its tension when moved from gun to gun or off and on a lot. Add in the magnifier shift causes zeor shift..."

**omegahunter** · 18-09-2009, 13:54

Seems a lot smoother than ACOG with a red-dot sight - maybe its something to do with snagging? Although the idea of a back up sight does sound like a good idea.

**Bisley_Bob** · 18-09-2009, 23:31

Surprise surprise, it sound like once again we're buying something that is so obviously the wrong thing, I don't know how they manage to do it.

**dutybooty** · 19-09-2009, 03:07

I was under the impression tht the one we had purchased was able to change between x1 (parallax free) and x4 at the flick of a lever - hence, no need for tiny CQB red dot sight above. Some US personnel i saw recently had this, and they thought it was a good piece of kit. Interestingly, the ELCAN website specifies a Mi-Std 1913 rail as being required to mount the sight (as with the ACOG)....so i wonder if they've modified the sight to fit our "NATO standard" rail in the same snag-happy, shite-looking manner as with the ACOG...

**EX_STAB** · 19-09-2009, 08:03

does make you wonder that you need a tool to adjust the windage but you can just pull a lever to dismount it.......

**Gun_Nut** · 19-09-2009, 10:44

You can get an idea what it will be like to use with this little demo:

[flash width=680 height=400]http://www.elcan.com/ELCAN_Business_Areas/Sighting_Systems/Products/Day_Sights/dr_demo.swf[/flash]