View Full Version : Leatherwood CMR 1-4x24 scope??

09-05-2010, 7:12 PM
Hey guys
I just posted a review of the Leatherwood Hi-Lux 1-4x24mm scope with a Burris PEPR mount. I know some of you have shown interest in that setup, so I thought I'd post here. As always, your informed input is very much appreciated, so let me know what you think.


09-05-2010, 7:29 PM
Should really go in the Optics section:


09-05-2010, 8:19 PM
Ok, did that. Sorry for the mis-post.

09-05-2010, 8:34 PM
Great vid. Well done. I just picked up a 1-4x24 from primary arms. Love having best of both worlds

09-05-2010, 8:36 PM
Very well done so thx for posting. Love that reticule but lack of daylight illumination is a deal breaker. Maybe next version.

09-05-2010, 9:58 PM
Great review. Thank you. I ordered one on Friday. I'm confident that it'll be a good scope for the money but I'm hoping for more obviously.

From the above post, I'm guessing that the illuminated reticle is only visible against a dark background much like a lot of illuminated rifle scopes (none red dot/holo)

09-06-2010, 9:49 AM
From what I've read, the illuminated reticule is not visible in daylight (i.e. it's only black) as opposed to the Trijicon TR24 or Meopta K-Dot.

09-06-2010, 12:23 PM
Hi guys and thanks for the input. It is true that the illuminated reticle is less visible in blaring daylight, but the reticle is still very fast if quick acquisition is needed. With any kind of reduced light, the reticle is very visible. Some might ask why you want illumination in broad daylight, but if you want a red dot, it would be easy enough to mount a small one on the burris mount.

Flat Broke
09-06-2010, 10:26 PM
I picked one up a couple weeks ago. One thing that didn't make a lot of sense to me was the thickness of the reticle. Because the illumination isn't full-daylight bright, you can lose the reticle against some backgrounds when moving quickly. It's not a problem if you can take a second to re-acquire the reticle before composing your sight picture, but I definitely couldn't run BAC style without the illumination/in lighting that would kill the illumination. From that standpoint, it's actually slower (for me) than a plex and dot type reticle where I can use the illuminated dot in low light conditions, but pick up the reticle in any brightness of daylight, while framing the target using the difference between heavy and thin reticle lines.

Which brings me to a general gripe about non-daylight visible illuminated CQB/mid range reticles. The overal height of an extra cell is negligible. Would it kill mfgs of these type of optics to machine the battery well a touch deeper and run two cells instead of one? Then run with a brighter LED, or just drive the snot out of the current spec unit. Yeah I know... burn it twice as bright, but for half as long. But why don't MFGs listen to the roar of customers in the market for this type of product over a TR24 if the illumination could be sorted out.


09-07-2010, 7:05 AM
But why don't MFGs listen to the roar of customers in the market for this type of product over a TR24 if the illumination could be sorted out.


If it's as good as, or better than the TR24, then we might have to pay for the comparative price of the TR24. ;)

Flat Broke
09-07-2010, 4:10 PM
If it's as good as, or better than the TR24, then we might have to pay for the comparative price of the TR24. ;)

Never said as good as the TR24, just daytime visible illumination like the T24. At the end of the day the Leatherwood is still a relatively inexpensive Chinese scope. It's not bad, but it's nowhere near as clear as any of the Accupoints I've looked through. For that matter it's not quite as bright as my brother's Nikon Prostaff. But again, it's a sub $300 scope with a focus on features, not optical clarity or survivability.

To bump the illumination would require a slightly deeper cap (don't even have to re-tool the scope parts), an extra battery, and possibly a new emitter or driver/blocking circuit. Yes the thing would bloom up a little bit without changes to the reticle, but for BAC hosing it's moot. The point I was trying to make is that for the cost of a battery, a negligible amount of material and possibly a different emitter, companies could put out what people are asking for. The per/unit cost increase extrapolated over an entire production run is less than $5. It still won't rival a TR24 in terms of clarity, quality, or surviveability; so it isn't going to sell at the same pricepoint. However, it might well move more units because it addresses a common decision making criterion that many people who are torn between an Aimpoint/Eotech/clone and a 1-4x optic get hung up on.


09-07-2010, 4:18 PM
I was just reading Erik Lund's post about the new and pricey USO optic with custom reticule and even he says that daylight-visible illumination is hard --


"Regarding the visibility of the illumination during daytime. The illumination will be washed out in bright sunlight. It's very difficult to overcome the power of bright sunlight with a battery powered diode. USO has the strongest diode available in the size required to fit within the scope body. You are only going to get it so strong. Everyone in the optics industry is fighting the same battle, more or less. The only company that really has the best solution so far is Trijicon, but they use fiber optic technology, not diode powered batteries as their primary lighting source. The USO illumination is daytime visible, but not compared to bright sunlight. In a light source other than a bright noon sun, it is visible, but it will never be as bright as an Aimpoint or an EOTech scope; they use different technology that is not compatible with internally magnified optics. The USO's illumination is comparable to all the other scopes (Nightforce, Meopta, Burris, Swarovoski, Leupold, etc.) on the market."