I've had this scope a while. I even shot a match with it and did pretty well, but I had it out in the reloading room with me and as it happened I looked through it and a few of my other scopes back to back so to speak. Something which I had noticed but sort of ignored a few times really jumped out at me.
The reticle, no matter how many guides I read and how much I play with the diopter just looks nowhere near as good as my other scopes. I had a Delta Stryker, PST Gen II, and my cheap Rudolph out and the reticles on all three were noticeably crisper. The scope always looked like the diopter is just a bit off. @koshkin mentions this scope here so I thought it must be mine that is faulty.
Other than that I liked the scope, but this direct comparison and my expectation had me reach our to Element. I sent the scope in, I had to pay, and I just got the bill to have it sent back to me too. The response I got after it was sent to Matt Dubber was: "I’m not finding any faults with the scope, it is operating as normal. I’m sorry if the customers eyes can’t fucus on the reticle, but the scope itself is within spec and we can’t replace a scope that isn’t faulty”.
Accompanying that was a small video which I will try to include here. When I look at this video I basically see the same issue, the reticle is fuzzy. The small little numbers, especially at the extremes are very fuzzy. The the background that is being focused on with the big numbers is crisp.
So all that build up for this question, is that fine? Does that look fine to you? Should I expect better from a $1.5k scope? Personally I'd really rather have another of one of my cheaper scopes with a nice crisp reticle, or for the same money, another Stryker.
On a unrelated note, the CS has been dreadful, but that's neither here nor there. It joins the relatively short list, along with the off center mushy turrets and bleeding illumination and 4x erector of things I don't like about this scope.
The reticle, no matter how many guides I read and how much I play with the diopter just looks nowhere near as good as my other scopes. I had a Delta Stryker, PST Gen II, and my cheap Rudolph out and the reticles on all three were noticeably crisper. The scope always looked like the diopter is just a bit off. @koshkin mentions this scope here so I thought it must be mine that is faulty.
Other than that I liked the scope, but this direct comparison and my expectation had me reach our to Element. I sent the scope in, I had to pay, and I just got the bill to have it sent back to me too. The response I got after it was sent to Matt Dubber was: "I’m not finding any faults with the scope, it is operating as normal. I’m sorry if the customers eyes can’t fucus on the reticle, but the scope itself is within spec and we can’t replace a scope that isn’t faulty”.
Accompanying that was a small video which I will try to include here. When I look at this video I basically see the same issue, the reticle is fuzzy. The small little numbers, especially at the extremes are very fuzzy. The the background that is being focused on with the big numbers is crisp.
So all that build up for this question, is that fine? Does that look fine to you? Should I expect better from a $1.5k scope? Personally I'd really rather have another of one of my cheaper scopes with a nice crisp reticle, or for the same money, another Stryker.
On a unrelated note, the CS has been dreadful, but that's neither here nor there. It joins the relatively short list, along with the off center mushy turrets and bleeding illumination and 4x erector of things I don't like about this scope.
