Leatherwood/Hi-Lux ART Camputer M-1000

[henschman]

I am considering a Leatherwood/Hi-Lux ART Camputer M-1000 2.5-10x44 scope for mounting on a Savage 111 .300 Win Mag rifle. It will be used in a sniper/long range precision role.

Do any of you have any experience with this scope? If you do, I would be interested in hearing your opinions on it.

I would like an optic that allows for very quick ranging and trajectory compensation for use on man-sized targets at unknown distances, so that it can be used to quickly and effectively get 1st shot hits in a high-stress situation where there is little time to range and adjust.

I am considering this optic because it seems to fit the bill. For those that don't know, it has a cam connected to the magnification dial, so that it increases elevation as you increase magnification. The cam is adjustable to match your load. The idea is that you "zoom in" on the target until an 18" wide space on the target is bracketed in the reticle, which automatically gives you the proper elevation adjustment for the target's range. Since the average man is around 18" wide shoulder-to-shoulder, you just have to bracket the target and shoot. The scope is set so that it adjusts 1x for every 100m, so it is capable of automatically ranging anywhere from 250 to 1000m.

It sounds like it would be very quick and requires no calculations, which would be ideal for use under stress. I am interested to know if it works as well as is advertised.

I also understand that, unlike the older ART's from the Vietnam era, this scope is made in China. However, also unlike the older ART, this one has an adjustable cam that can be set for different calibers or hand-loads, rather than having to buy a different cam for every load. I'm sure there is much higher quality glass out there, but I'm mostly interested in this scope for the cam feature. The price is also pretty tempting at around $350.

Any input on the functionality and quality of this scope from people who have actual experience with it would be much appreciated.

 

[aubie515]

I have their Leatherwood CMR on my RFB and like the reticle and features a lot for the money. That being said, there are no free lunches when it comes to long range shooting. If you want a good reticle for use against unknown distances...I say look no further than the Horus reticles. I have an H 58 reticle on my Bushnell HDMR and like the scope a lot...if you are current LEO/military, you will get a great price on it if they have anymore of their promotional scopes for active LEO/military.

 

[henschman]

I've seen the Horus reticles. They still require the shooter to measure the target with the mil grid and either refer to the range card for his load, or memorize the elevation hold-off for each distance. I prefer something that is a little more "thought-free" and quick, since I think a lot of that careful ranging, mental math, and memorized values would go out the window in a high stress situation like a 2-way range.

For instance, I really like the ACOG's stadia line reticle for battle rifle ranges... just pick the stadia line that is closest to the target's width, put it on him, and take the shot. I like the low fixed power for battle rifle use, but for a .300 win mag I would want something with a little more magnification for the longer ranges.

I have always thought that 1x per 100m is about perfect for field use, and that is how this scope works. Just adjust the elevation dial until the target is bracketed in the reticle brackets, and it will automatically give you the proper elevation for that range, or damn close to it.

It also has a mil dot reticle that is correct when set on 10x.

It seems like a neat idea... I was mainly just wanting input on whether it is tough enough for field use, and how well it works in the real world from those who have used one. There doesn't seem to be a lot of people who have experience with one, so I might have to be the guinea pig.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

if you are on a 2 way range, the people paying you will give you an acog.

 

[henschman]

I already have an ACOG... it is great for its niche, which is as a battle rifle optic, but I'm looking for something that is more suitable for a sniper rifle to be used at longer ranges.

And no, I am never going to be issued anything.

So nobody out there has played around with one of these camputer scopes, huh?

 

[Zak Smith]

I strongly recommend buying a modern scope with the features that distinguish scopes as practical long-range shooting scopes, ie-


article | Practical Long-Range Rifle Shooting, Part II - Optics

 

[henschman]

Good articles, Zak. There's some good information there. However, I did notice that the techniques described in the article required either lasing or milling the target, then referring to a range card for the elevation and windage setting, and then cranking on the knobs to reach the right setting before taking the shot. It seems that this would be too slow for some situations. Even if you're holding off with the reticle rather than cranking on knobs, you still have to either get out a laser rangefinder, or measure the target with your reticle and do math to figure out the range, and then refer to your dope card for the hold-off. I suppose you could memorize the dope for each 100 yard increment or something, which would speed things up; but it seems to me that this cam method would allow the shooter to accurately range, make the necessary elevation correction, and have lead going downrange a lot quicker, and with a lot less thought.

What am I missing? I suppose there's some reason why the military replaced all their ART's with Leupolds.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

the ART scopes are external adjustments, and susceptable to sand or dirt or other foreign objects in the adjustment mechanism. The current Gen Elcan scopes are also external adjustment, and they are not well loved, and they're much simpler than the ART.

The ART adjustable cam is adjustable, therefore it will adjust when its not supposed to.

What happens when you want to shoot at 250 yards and want more than 2.5 power?

 

[Zak Smith]

You're "milling" the target with the Leatherwood, you just don't think you are. It effectively locks you into using the same magnification ratio at all ranges at all time (ie, 3x at 300 or 5x at 500). And if you don't have any object that is known to be exactly 18" wide/tall, you are stuck. At least with milling or using an MOA reticle for the same purpose, you explicitly know what you're doing and can still do it properly when the Leatherwood's assumptions are not met.

Thinking about the mechanical actions needed to range something with the reticle via the power ring vs. just ranging it normally and applying the data: keeping a rifle on target and exactly lined up on target (to "mil" the 18" wide object) while adjusting the power ring is not fast. So it'll either be inaccurate or slow. You do need to keep the scope aligned on target when milling (or "moa-ing") but since you're not manipulating the scope, you have both hands in a firing configuration and the rifle isn't moving at all.

Once you have the distance, you have the datum for that distance, and you can either dial it or apply it in the reticle, or a combination.

 

[henschman]

I have never read about any of the military issue ART scopes having problems with foreign objects keeping the power ring/cam from working... they have generally pretty positive reviews from those who used them in Vietnam and elsewhere. Now I realize that this isn't the same exact model as the military issue ones, but it does use the same mechanism. And as for the adjustable cam adjusting when you don't want it to, I have never heard of this being a problem from people who have owned these scopes. Admittedly there don't seem to be a lot of reviews of this product out there, but I won't call it a problem until people actually experience it. That's why I was asking for experiences from people who have actually used this scope.

Yes, the elevation adjustment is slaved to the power ring, so you have to shoot at 2.5x at 25m, 5x at 500m, etc. I have heard some people complain about this. However, they are usually people who want to use the scope for shooting small groups on paper. for my intended use, I don't think it would be much of a handicap... I think it would be more than made up for by the auto ranging feature. Personally, I am fine with an unmagnified optic at 250m, so I don't know why I would ever want more than 2.5x at that range for field shooting. Heck, I do just fine at 5-600m with a 2.5x scout scope. I am not personally a fan of very high powered optics. I find that I need no more than 1x for every 100m, and that is exactly how this scope works. If you just need to observe, you can crank the power up to do so, and then crank it back down to bracket the target to take the shot.

 

[Zak Smith]

I'll just add that nobody competing in "sniper/long range precision" or doing it for serious these days uses a system like that Leathewood. FWIW.

 

[crossrhodes]

Whats the mission?

I like the old fashion way of using my mil dots and home made laminated mil dot range card, but that's me and I'm comfortable with it (stopped carrying an M40 in 1998). My friend has a Leatherwood on his LR 308 C and loves it for rec shooting and gonging targets out to 800 yards. But it's a recreation thing and not a real world situation rifle. Even with the restricted range equals magnification, he still has fun and is pretty consistent hitting the target. I guess it comes down to what it will really be used for or if you want to have the most expensive toys for bragging rights.

 

[henschman]

I posted my last reply before I saw Zak's 2nd post.

I see where you're coming from on the mechanics required to use the Leatherwood. Holding the rifle still enough to accurately bracket the target while simultaneously exerting muscle on the power ring (imparting motion on the rifle) could indeed be a chore, especially out at say 900 yards.

I guess I could be pretty quick with a standard MOA or mil scope if I practiced quickly ranging targets with the reticle and memorized my come-ups in 50 yard increments or something. I suspect that most experienced precision long range shooters don't have to sit there and do mental math every time they range something... I would think you would eventually memorize how many MOA/mils common sized targets are at various distances, and not have to think about it.

I guess I sort of already do that with my M1A's front sight post.

 

[Zak Smith]

Also, your data will change when the altitude changes, the temperature changes, or your load change.

 

[Zak Smith]

I suspect that most experienced precision long range shooters don't have to sit there and do mental math every time they range something...

Almost nobody mils things unless they are forced to. Milling depends on knowing the precise size of some object near the target and the process is slow and relatively error prone. An error in ranging due to errors in the milling task itself, the math, or simply the size of what you think is 18" (or whatever) can cause misses. A 5-10% error is enough to cause a miss in many cases. A friend of mine is a special forces sniper and he said that he's never operationally had to mill anything. They all use lasers. The LRF is ubiquitous and much faster and more accurate than milling. If you have a spotter it's faster for him to locate targets and tell you the ranges as you get on the targets than it is for you to mill in the scope (using either method).

 

[lencac]

You might want to look into a 2nd or 3rd Generation Springfield Armory Gov't Model 4x14x56. It has everything a person needs to shoot from 200 yrds to 1000 yrds with a 168gr .308 @2650 fps. WITHOUT touching any dials. I know I have one and it works extremely well on my M1A. I believe they are made by Nikon but not positive.
Just a thought.

 

[mshootnit]

I think it would be cool to have a true to form repro ART for my M1a, same color and materials etc as the original from Redfield. Heck Leupold is now making Redfields, so why not a new ART? Anybody at Leupold here me?

 

[crossrhodes]

Mil dots

I can agree with ZAK SMITH to a point. Technology is a beautiful thing and should be taken advantage of when possible. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Carlos Hathcock and a few others didn't have electronic range finders in their hay day. Its still a good building block understanding and using mil dots. But I will say, when we were issued the GVS5's ( I'm dating myself now) it did make life easier for ranging. Other then that the Springfield scopes are pretty nice and I loved my 4x14 for 5.56 for yote killing.

 

[Zak Smith]

One of my points is that even if you want to mill something and not use a laser, a regular mil-dot or moa-based reticle is more flexible and powerful than the Leatherwood system.

 

[Chindo18Z]

henschman: What am I missing? I suppose there's some reason why the military replaced all their ART's with Leupolds.

Honestly, because the Leupold was/is a far superior sniper optic.

I started out as a military sniper issued an M21 and the ART I (Leatherwood), which was a decent scope for 800-900 yards. The ranging cam dial was precise and could be locked down. The scope had a proven combat track record and could take a lot of knocks.

Naturally, the Army later bought the "improved" version (the ART II). POS. I went through three of them while attending the German Army Sniper Instructor Course. Gas leaks/fogging, reticles that literally fell sideways out of their mount, no incremental range scale on the scope (you couldn't precisely set a range; each setting was a guess), loss of zero from bumps and recoil, and a scope base set screw which would not stay torqued down. Just a piss-poor scope with poor quality control...but bigger, flat black, and impressively more expensive than the original.

I intermittently used various issued ARTs on multiple M21s for about 15 years. The ranging stadia lines and ballistic cam combo were the heat until the advent of practical laser range finders. I never had a problem using mil dots, but a laser is just so much more precise.

When we went with the Leupold for our (then) new M24s, it was a no-brainer to procure a base to allow the same scope to be used on both weapons (M21 & M24), as we retained both rifles for ODA use for many years. There are things to be said for an accurate semi-auto: Rapid follow-up shots and the ability to lay down some suppressive fire when needed.

I've zero experience with the current Chinese clones, but suspect they are not quite the precision instrument that the old ART I was. Probably couldn't be any worse than the ART IIs.