Help identifying a reflex sight

[Karl87]

I have gotten my information from various "User Reviews" on firearms sites, I'm not some person who posts to feel special about himself  before he goes to bed so you can drop it. And I'll fill in my profile as you requested.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Karl dude, put your guns away

Anyone just showing up to a message forum needs to establish their credibility. 'I heard' comments can cause all kinds of crazy spin offs. Other times they could be bang on. You're new here so don't get defensive if other posters put a little pressure on you or test the waters. It's one way we figure out who the serious guys are and who the clowns are, cool?

The sight DID have apparently this major problem with loosing the zero when shifting between 4 power and 1 power. A fellow in my platoon who used to work at elcan and build these sights said they completely redesigned the guts of it and fixed the loss of zero problem.

 

[Franko]

I have gotten my information from various "User Reviews" on firearms sites, I'm not some person who posts to feel special about himself  before he goes to bed so you can drop it. And I'll fill in my profile as you requested.

Drop the attitude. It adds nothing to the thread whatsoever.

The Army.ca Staff

 

[KevinB]

The sight DID have apparently this major problem with loosing the zero when shifting between 4 power and 1 power. A fellow in my platoon who used to work at elcan and build these sights said they completely redesigned the guts of it and fixed the loss of zero problem.

Well dude - ELCAN can claim all they want.  USSOC toss them in the trash - because even their Rev6 2008 model still sucks ass.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I thought I read USSOC canned their order due to the mentioned issues with dropping the zero from 4x to 1x which then caused Elcan to revisit the design for 2008. By that time USSOC wasn't interested in re-initiating their order however the sight had it's zero dropping issue's fixed?

 

[KevinB]

Still being foisted on people by that Command -- still not being used...

 

[Fusaki]

I still think it's a little weird that Elcan would actually build the sight with a spot to mount the Dr Optic.

If they had intended the SpectreDR to be a good 1x-4x sight, why would they even bother to machine a spot to mount the Dr Optic on it? It's almost like they knew the 1x setting wasn't very good, so they engineered it to have a Dr as well. But if you're going to have a Dr as well, whats the point of having variable magnification scope in the first place?

??? ???

 

[HItorMiss]

Backup, secondar, redundancy etc etc etc

Always plan for something to fail and have an alternate available

 

[brihard]

I have gotten my information from various "User Reviews" on firearms sites, I'm not some person who posts to feel special about himself  before he goes to bed so you can drop it. And I'll fill in my profile as you requested.

Simmer. When I do or say something unreasonable, then you can call me out. You'll learn in time that that is just how this site works; the value of this site is compeltely dependent on the credibility and backgrounds of its members. Don't assume it was anything personal; someone would have asked you if I had not.

 

[Fusaki]

Backup, secondar, redundancy etc etc etc

Always plan for something to fail and have an alternate available

I don't buy it.

Other scopes that are known to be high end pieces of kit don't have that kind of redundancy. ACOGs, Aimpoints, EOTechs, and I-6's favorite S&B Short Dots are all expected to work right - all the time. If they don't, thats why your have back up irons.

I know the phrase "Two is one, one is none", but that applies withing reasonable limits. No one wears two ballistic  plates front and two plates back. The weight gets to be too much and the end user just expects one set of quality plates to function as they were designed. The same is with scopes. Why carry a Dr Optic on top of a SpectreDR just in case the Spectre fails? Are sights like that prone to failure? I should hope not.

But for ELCAN to machine a spot on top of the Spectre to mount a DR Optic tells me that they expect the 1x setting to not work very well, so they have to ship the end product with the option to mount an alternative.

 

[RCR Grunt]

I don't buy it.

Other scopes that are known to be high end pieces of kit don't have that kind of redundancy. ACOGs, ...

ACOG w/ Doctor Optic

Looks like Trijicon sells a model of their ACOG with a Doctor Optic slapped on top.  Does that mean the ACOG is prone to failure?  I don't know, I've never used one, but I also haven't heard anyone calling them garbage either.  I think there is demand in the market for this combination simply for what Bullet Magnet said, redundancy.  So, if 2 is 1, and 1 is none, then 3 (ACOG + Dr. Optic + BUIS) must be 2, and there is your redundancy.  Besides, chicks dig reflex sights on top of other sights.

 

[KevinB]

The Dr on top came out of the fact that the majority of uses have a zero shift when using the ACOG's in the CQB BAC mode - its due to the way the eye sees the illuminated image -- hence they went the DR ontop method -- it was all part of a weird USSOC desire -- and folks who did not understand muscle memory with a sighting unit -- yes it work - but its not ideal.

Redundancy is not part of the issue here at all with either scope.

 

[Fusaki]

ACOG w/ Doctor Optic

Looks like Trijicon sells a model of their ACOG with a Doctor Optic slapped on top.  Does that mean the ACOG is prone to failure?  I don't know, I've never used one, but I also haven't heard anyone calling them garbage either.  I think there is demand in the market for this combination simply for what Bullet Magnet said, redundancy.  So, if 2 is 1, and 1 is none, then 3 (ACOG + Dr. Optic + BUIS) must be 2, and there is your redundancy.  Besides, chicks dig reflex sights on top of other sights.

Thats not where I'm going with this. There is a big difference between putting a Dr Optic on top of a 4x ACOG and putting a Dr Optic on top of a 1x-4x SpectreDR.

Although I-6 has pointed out that the ACOG+Dr Optic set up is not ideal, I can see why some think its a good idea. You have your 4x ACOG for distances and the Dr Optic for CQB. There is no redundancy.

A SpectreDR on the other hand is variable magnification, switching from 1x to 4x by a throw lever. To me, putting a Dr Optic on top of a scope that already does 1x does not make any sense. It's redundant, and I don't see why ELCAN would design the SpectreDR with a spot to mount the Dr Optic. It reads to me like ELCAN has essentially admitted that the 1x setting on the Spectre just doesn't cut it, so they needed to throw the Dr on there as an alternative. But if you're going to do that, it defeats the purpose of having a variable magnification scope in the first place, so you'd might as well go with an ACOG instead.

Seen?

 

[HItorMiss]

I am tracking Wonderbreab....

I'll point out one thing though, just because one picture seems/does have a mount on the SpectreDR does not an SOP make roger?

PM inbound BTW.

 

[Good2Golf]

I've heard they use the doctor sight alongside the spectreDR because it loses zero between switching from 1x-4x, so they keep the spectre on 4x and use the reflex for short distance shooting.

Cool...déjà vu!

Pretending that this little gem above was never posted, I-6 having mentioned the same thing precisely two posts earlier is enough for me. 

I'll take working with I-6 in the flesh (well drinking, anyway) over an "I've heard..." any day.

G2G

 

[KevinB]

BulletMagnet -- the USSOC MD/NS was competed and a split award given to Elcan and ACOG -- both of those versions have a Dr Optic on top --- with Trijicon being the new North American supplier for Dokter.

As for other people who buy the Spectre Dr - I am not sure.  My guess is Elcan is trying to slough most of the intial rejected versions off to the public and others who will buy them.