Rifle Scopes Questions on the Elcan Specter TR 139

[MadMax7.62]

Hey guys. First of all, I am new here, so forgive my lack of knowledge. I am not a long range marksman (yet), so I'm not looking for insane accuracy advice. I am looking for a scope for my battle rifle. I have an LMT .308 with a 13.5" barrel. It is not intended for long range, this is my close to mid range gun. I am looking for a scope that has a ballistic drop reticle for fast target acquisition in the field. The Elcan Specter 139 has caught my eye because it has a BDC, is build like a tank, and has the ability to quickly flip through magnification ranges in a tight situation. My question is if the ballistic drop built into the 139 reticle will work with the 13.5" barrel. I know the bullets drop out of a 13.5" barrel faster than a 16" or 18". I can't find any specs on what barrel or load the 139 reticle is calibrated to.

Secondly, if the 139 is not suitable to the barrel I have, what other scopes would you suggest? I was looking at the Nightforce atacr 1-8, but that might be more scope than I need for this rifles intended purpose. What I am looking for is something in the 1-8 magnification range, extremely tough, and with a BDC reticle if possible. Thanks guys, I appreciate your time to respond.

 

[shoobe01]

I am pretty deeply on the side that BDC anything will never be exactly aligned to your gun/ammo combination, so for my short range LPVO (a .300 SBR set up for subs) I simply got A scope with sufficient ticks, and then did my own assignment of what the different ticks mean to me, ignoring the original design.

See the ticks have numbers for some 5.56 load and velocity, but I am ignoring them, have a version of this printed out on the side of the gun.

I got into this mode because I saw people will drop charts on the side of their ACOG, for example, and asked. They had notes about how THEIR gun shot a LITTLE different from the BDC ticks, so marked how so they held over correctly.

(FWIW: mine happens to be an SMRS with the BTR-2 reticle, but that was based on other things I needed (e.g. OAL so I could fit the clipon in front as well), not saying it's the best scope or reticle.)



To the original question, I would try to find the manual for the scope and see if it discusses the reticle. Sometimes, the reticle is discussed in detail in an entirely other document, even so it may take some looking. Or just call up the mfg or a retailer, like EuroOptic and see if they can tell you the answer, but I bet it's set up for mil issue so M855 from an M4 + M80 from a... ??? since the 139 is supposedly a dual-reticle.

 

[MadMax7.62]

That makes sense. This makes me leans toward the nightforce 1-8 again. Then I can just use whatever marks line up with my drop.

I have messaged elcan about this, no reply yet. Plus I wanted people's advice who have used it, as I figure the manufacturer will say anything to make a sale.

 

[shoobe01]

Dunno ELCAN, but most mfgs will give you the real data if they have it. Some hide it even from their own staff, so it takes digging. But Canadians! They have to be nice, right?

The Eurooptics guys are very knowledgeable, and seem to always be in it to legit help, so they are one distro that — if no forum answers — I'd trust as a source.

 

[MadMax7.62]

So I messaged ATI and this is what they said.

"The Specter TR 1/3/9 with 7.62 BDC reticle is calibrated with a blended 147gr NATO and a 168gr MATCH on a 20” barrel.

So, the answer to your question is that it definitely can work on a shorter barrel, you will just have to do a little T&E to determine where your come-ups will be at distance."

So it could work, but it won't have the same range finding capabilities as a BDC should have.

 

[The DFC]

Vortex Gen 3 with MRAD reticle would fit the bill too.

 

[thehun]

This is why I hate BDC reticles...

 

[MadMax7.62]

Vortex Gen 3 with MRAD reticle would fit the bill too.

That is my top option right now.

 

[thehun]

What bugs me with the 1/3/9 is the "unfocused" "hazy" looking reticle at 9x...

 

[nnrrwz]

What bugs me with the 1/3/9 is the "unfocused" "hazy" looking reticle at 9x...

i just got scar 17s want to buy this 1/3/9,but i saw you said it has bug on x9... have you got any photo for "unfocused" "hazy" on x9,thanks for your help

 

[thehun]

I don't...I looked through one at a shop...1X and 3X is awesome...9X the reticle appears semi-transparent...not crisp...however it makes it completely useable and hasn’t given me trouble but the reticle isn’t a sharp reticle like what we are used to.

 

[Mark E]

I don't...I looked through one at a shop...1X and 3X is awesome...9X the reticle appears semi-transparent...not crisp...however it makes it completely useable and hasn’t given me trouble but the reticle isn’t a sharp reticle like what we are used to.

The reticle at 9x will become dark and crisp when your eye achieves optimum parallax. I had read this in the garandthumb elcantr video comments section and tried it out myself. If you move your head out of Center with the scope, but not quite to the point of losing the image, you’ll see the reticle fade. I’ve heard this how Elcan designed the scope - can anyone comment further?

Newbie post - I found this thread researching Elcan optics. Hard to find much info on the TR, and not much more available for the DR 1.5x/6x.

My LGS has both in stock and I checked them both out mounted on a Tavor 7.

Eye relief seems *slightly* better on the DR, which also has a wider relative FOV. It’s shorter and 145g lighter too.

HOWEVER!

The TR is undeniably cool and $600 cheaper at my LGS.

Any owners able to chime in? Having a hard time choosing between these two.

 

[thehun]

In so many ways...I wish I never sold my TR!

 

[EchoFiveIndia]

I’ve always wanted to try one…

To the OP, you can use StrelokPro to determine how your load will function with the reticle if you get some solid chrono data for that barrel/load combo.

 

[TheOE800]

I’ve since sold my 308 carbine so I’ve got a left over TR I need to list in the PX, but I couldn’t get used to the “gray” reticle at 9x. The shorter eye relief over the DR 1/4x was apparent to me, but it doesn’t seem to bother others.

I’d rather have the TR than a DR 1.5/6x. I’m a DR 1/4x man at heart though.

 

[thehun]

I’ll say the 1.5/6 makes much less sense than getting the TR.

1/4 is the best Elcan…

 

[EchoFiveIndia]

I’ll say the 1.5/6 makes much less sense than getting the TR.

1/4 is the best Elcan…

Agreed.

I’ve had the 1.5/6 on 556 and 762 rifles.

I went back to the 1/4 for 556 because the negatives out weigh the positives. You just don’t gain enough to justify the 1.5/6 over the 1/4.

On 762 I ditched the Elcan altogether and went with a VCOG SCO. I’ve never run the TR but if I could find a deal on one I’d certainly pull the VCOG off the 762 to try it out.

I love Elcans and VCOGs. There’s just something magical about optics that can double as impact weapons and still hold zero…

 

[thehun]

I would go:

5.56: 1/4 DR
7.62: Elcan TR

I actually think the TR is a much easier system to get behind than a VCOG...man I freakin miss my TR just talking about it again...dang it...