Comparison: ELCAN - ACOG

[Sosah]

Hi just wondering, does anyone have any information regarding the ELCAN optical sight as compared to the Trijicon ACOG? I've heard various opinions from friends but I would consider their views as somewhat biased in favor of the ELCAN. How does the ACOG stand up in comparison? Are the quality of optics equal or does one stand above the other? All opinions are welcome.

[FNG]

Sossah, it's Hammer from airsoft. I've used the Elcan so I can tell you all about that. But never used the ACOG before.

I can say that the Elcan isn't the finest optic around... it's a sight designed for rough use in the field, and for the purpose it's designed to serve, it's excellent, especially when the other option is to go iron sights. But in terms of sophistication, it is probably crude compared to the more advanced ACOG.

Perhaps if you tell me a bit more about the ACOG, I can help better.

[JSOCMarine]

I have used both. For ruggedness and optical reliability my vote is overwhelmingly for the ACOG. Semper Fi.

[recce_o]

I've only used the Elcan, and am not at all impressed. The problem is with the mount: if loses zero quite frequently. Plus it has a very narrow field of view for close quarters work, and no back up sighting system.

[Sosah]

Hey Hammer good to hear from you! How're things over in Kingston?

Thanks for the replies all. I'd heard some reviews of the ACOG from friends who are in the CF and basically they were trying to tell me the ACOG was no good. I knew it couldn't be true based on the simple fact that it wouldn't be so popular if it was really a POS. I've seen a few other Trijicon products and they all seemed to be top notch. Some of the comments surprise me though in regards to the ELCAN.



[This message has been edited by Sosah (edited 04-24-2000).]

[FNG]

Recce_o is correct in saying that the narrow field of view is a big problem. It is known in the infantry circles that troops engaging a target in a section attack take longer to notice new targets appearing elsewhere simply as a result of the narrow field of view. This is especially true when troops are inexperienced with the Elcan, or are not alert enough while firing. I have seen many recruits make the mistake of engaging the targets not in their own firing lane because of their lack of situational awareness.

There is a backup sighting system on the Elcan... there is a set of 'iron' sights set on top of the scope. The sight is of the same type as those found on most pistols (I forgot the name of it). As you can imagine, this type of sight is not very effective beyond 50-100meters, especially since the iron sight is made of the same thermoplastic material as the Elcan itself... thus most Elcans that I have come across have iron sights with 'worn' or 'rounded' edges, making it even less effective.

One of the things I like about the Elcan is the horizontal and parallel lines in the sight itself. Each line is 10 mils long, so it is relatively easy for troops to make accurate range estimation, or even point out target location to their fellow soldiers using the mil scale as reference.

Another point about the Elcan is the ease of range adjustment. No need to toy with the bullet drop compensator, or manually adjust the rifle when range changes... just put it to a new setting and start firing.

Is the Trijicon ACOG a reflex or red dot sight? If so, then you can be sure that it's close quarter engagement capability would exceed that of the Elcan.

[garett]

The ELCAN isn't the greatest item of kit in the CF inventory. The screws tend to loosen easily and I've seen them fall off but thats more the individuals fault. The C7 was a more versatile weapon before the C79 especially in close combat. Its interesting to do jungle lanes with a C7 with a C79 because its basically try to point and shoot.