View Full Version : Eotech 553
Any news on the new 553? When are they going to start shipping?
I thought they were shipping in limited numbers???
CapnCrunch
07-02-06, 14:34
The only person that is getting them is Uncle Sam, and it doesn't sound like he's gotten that many yet.
does the arms mount on that have any adjustablility for the difference in spec 's from one manufaturers rail to another's?
mil' spec' is not always, mil' spec...
does the arms mount on that have any adjustablility for the difference in spec 's from one manufaturers rail to another's?
mil' spec' is not always, mil' spec...
No the ARMS mount does not offer adjustability and that is
the weak point of the 553 design.
Any word if they plan on offering a 553 minus the ARMS mount, and minus the NV compatibility in the near future (maybe named the model 513?) That I could mount on a LaRue mount???
Any word if they plan on offering a 553 minus the ARMS mount, and minus the NV compatibility in the near future (maybe named the model 513?) That I could mount on a LaRue mount???
I heard mention of a LaRue mount but I'm not sure if it will ever come about. There was some issue with part of the optics electronics being built into the bottom/mount.
when i spoke to eotech about release date for 553, i asked how come they did not use the la rue mount? they said a lot of people have been asking that same question and she did not know why they did not use the la rue given that seemed to be what the people wanted...:confused:
when i spoke to eotech about release date for 553, i asked how come they did not use the la rue mount? they said a lot of people have been asking that same question and she did not know why they did not use the la rue given that seemed to be what the people wanted...:confused:
Go back and do some more research. This topic has been hashed over on many forums. The ARMS mount was used because that is what was in the spec given by the government.
I heard mention of a LaRue mount but I'm not sure if it will ever come about. There was some issue with part of the optics electronics being built into the bottom/mount.
I was told that the LaRue 553 mount is a NO-GO.
Then that's one EoTech I won't be buying.
CapnCrunch
07-05-06, 19:06
Then that's one EoTech I won't be buying.
You and me both.
Go back and do some more research. This topic has been hashed over on many forums. The ARMS mount was used because that is what was in the spec given by the government.
Go ask a moderator to lock this topic then. Come to think of it, most topics have been hashed over on other forums. Thanks for the info' on the gov't spec, it was news to me at least.
Let's simmer down now...
Plenty of good info in this thread and if we can keep it civil it will stay.
I was told that the LaRue 553 mount is a NO-GO.
That's what it sounded like when Grant posted that on another board a long time ago, when the specs and photos of the 553 first came out. I guess it was worth a try.
This is not going to be a forum were threads get locked. Everybody has read the rules before they signed up and is expected to follow them. I’m respectfully asking that everybody stays polite & courteous at all times. Every member of M4carbine should feel that they can post freely without being attacked for their opinion. This is one of my pet peeves with other Internet forums.
I'm sure we will be re-hashing many topics on M4carbine that have been discussed to death on other forums. I'm also sure we will have the occasional heated differences of opinion. The difference is that ours will be handled differently. How many multiple page threads have you read on "Other" forums were nobody seems to know what they are talking about? Or even been within ten miles of the product being discussed? It seems like a waste of bandwidth to me, and a good way to walk off with bad information. That is not going to happen on M4carbine.
Thank you, and let's get back to the conversation now. :D
That's what it sounded like when Grant posted that on another board a long time ago, when the specs and photos of the 553 first came out. I guess it was worth a try.
Hopefully it's still worth a try. Maybe they'll eventually decide something like that would sell.
We can hope, and we can ask.
If it was do-able, LaRue would have already done it. I was told by LaRue that it is not going to happen.
If it was do-able, LaRue would have already done it. I was told by LaRue that it is not going to happen.
I'm not doubting your comments WRT LaRue.
My earlier comments were referencing my hopes that EOTech will listen to the civilian market and give us a 553 variation (something 123-powered) without the ARMS mounts... maybe even something lower profile that will work with our LaRue EOTech risers.
JTAC_Supply
07-06-06, 21:19
I've been touching base with them every few weeks since SHOT and the order placed then. Unfortunately it looks like the 553 is indefinitely delayed, at least that was the info I got the last time I talked to them.
Of course I've read rumors everywhere...about color, availability, and such. What I've been told from Eotech is Coyote only at this time, no LaRue mounts, the ARMS mounts were govt. spec.
A CR123 512 or 552, (maybe the 514 and 554? :p ) would be great and hopefully that is down the road, simply for battery commonality across platforms.
J
I've been touching base with them every few weeks since SHOT and the order placed then. Unfortunately it looks like the 553 is indefinitely delayed, at least that was the info I got the last time I talked to them.
Of course I've read rumors everywhere...about color, availability, and such. What I've been told from Eotech is Coyote only at this time, no LaRue mounts, the ARMS mounts were govt. spec.
A CR123 512 or 552, (maybe the 514 and 554? :p ) would be great and hopefully that is down the road, simply for battery commonality across platforms.
J
What reason was given for the delay/cancellation of the 553 program?
I would be very interested in a CR123 powered 552. It makes more sense, at least for my needs. It would give more options because I can choose to use a riser mount (LaRue Eotech mount) or not. Some weapons do not need the extra height and with the 553 you are stuck with it.
JTAC_Supply
07-07-06, 01:04
I probably shouldn't have said indefinite, the program hasn't been shelved, but I was only told "A problem with the base and it's going back into design". I asked about ETA and was told "We're now saying sometime this year" :(
I think that once everything is said and done, it will be a good sight but it is going to be longer to get them out.
I also asked about service issues with the ARMS mounts, but Eotech said at SHOT that once they are shipped, any issues with the ARMS mount is ARMS responsibility. A Larue mount would have been nice, but if it's not compatible it's not compatible, and of course isn't what SOCOM speced. Something along the lines of the GG&G Accucam would be great, but of course that doesn't add the height that SOCOM wanted.
J
CapnCrunch
07-07-06, 02:02
Who's a good person to talk to at EOTech/L3 about this particular optic?
You can question me on it. The program is not suspended at all or scrapped by any stretch of the imagination. There were some minor redesigns that were done and they resulted in pushing our production time back. It will certainly be out this year, but we are looking at an August timeframe right now (this is, of course, subject to change).
I've got a few questions. 1. Why have the permanent riser and not at least have an option without it? I as well as many others much prefer the true/absolute co-witness over the lower 1/3 co-witness. 2. Why wasn't the standard color black? I really like the CR123 batteries but I just can't justify the price of the 553 compared to the 551 or 552. 3. I'm guessing that the arms mount is where the difference in cost is at?
I've got a few questions. 1. Why have the permanent riser and not at least have an option without it? I as well as many others much prefer the true/absolute co-witness over the lower 1/3 co-witness. 2. Why wasn't the standard color black? I really like the CR123 batteries but I just can't justify the price of the 553 compared to the 551 or 552. 3. I'm guessing that the arms mount is where the difference in cost is at?
I'm sure almost everyone of these points was specified by SOCOM.
CapnCrunch
07-07-06, 14:56
You can question me on it. The program is not suspended at all or scrapped by any stretch of the imagination. There were some minor redesigns that were done and they resulted in pushing our production time back. It will certainly be out this year, but we are looking at an August timeframe right now (this is, of course, subject to change).
Dennis, I'll give you guys a call Monday. Thanks!
dennis, welcome to the site. good to have you.
guys, i had a previous dealing with dennis and he provides outstanding customer service. a pleasure to deal with.;)
I've got a few questions. 1. Why have the permanent riser and not at least have an option without it? I as well as many others much prefer the true/absolute co-witness over the lower 1/3 co-witness. 2. Why wasn't the standard color black? I really like the CR123 batteries but I just can't justify the price of the 553 compared to the 551 or 552. 3. I'm guessing that the arms mount is where the difference in cost is at?
While Dennis is the official voice of L3-EOTech, I don't mind helping him out sometimes. To answer your questions above: All the differences between the 552 and 553 were changes that were requested by USSOCOM for the contract award. Nothing was changed that wasn't required by Crane. This includes: The 7mm increase in height, the Flat Dark Earth Color, the CR123 battery type, the battery cap tether, the 20-meter waterproofing, and the ARMS levers.
The increase in height was specified at 7mm so it would be the same height and give the same cheek-weld as other optics that might be mounted on the same weapon (Trijicon ACOG or Thermal Weapon Sight, etc.). The reason for the ARMS levers is for the ability to change optics quickly without tools - so the SF operator can tailor the optic to the mission and they can go to a thermal scope at night or a magnified optic if necessary. It makes sense when you think about it.
The ARMS levers are part of the additional cost, but is not the only factor. The additional testing required for 20-meter submersibility certification is another. The stainless steel windage and elevation screws also cost more. The battery cap tether, the additional cost of the FDE anodizing, etc. etc.
The 553 was created to specs issued by Crane, period. Commercial marketing was expected to follow, but was not the driver behind the new product.
Thanks for the clarification!
I recently did a little intensive testing at Crane.
553, great idea, poor execution. Color, build, power source, height, are all very nice. And then the ARMS mount ruins it. Fits some uppers so sloppy you can slide dollar bills between them and the rails, but others you will snap the levers before they will close. I'm not looking forward to receiving them, and am certainly in no hurry to swap out my 551 on a LaRue riser.
Swap out the mount for a LaRue or normal screw like the old ones and I'm all over them.
I recently did a little intensive testing at Crane.
553, great idea, poor execution. Color, build, power source, height, are all very nice. And then the ARMS mount ruins it. Fits some uppers so sloppy you can slide dollar bills between them and the rails, but others you will snap the levers before they will close. I'm not looking forward to receiving them, and am certainly in no hurry to swap out my 551 on a LaRue riser.
Swap out the mount for a LaRue or normal screw like the old ones and I'm all over them.
The units sent down to Crane were pre-production samples. There were some issues with the mount being too loose, which is why the base is now going through redesign and is the reason for the delay in shipping. The 553 is not yet in series production and all issues regarding the mount will be sorted out before we begin shipping to USSOCOM and to our distributors. We are utilizing the ARMS levers, but the base is our own design. The only part being purchased from Arms is the little levers, not the entire base. The LaRue levers are nice, but would have protruded too far out the side, would have cost more, and may not have met the specs we were given. The ARMS levers offer a much lower profile and will work fine.
The units sent down to Crane were pre-production samples. There were some issues with the mount being too loose, which is why the base is now going through redesign.....We are utilizing the ARMS levers, but the base is our own design. The only part being purchased from Arms is the little levers, not the entire base. The LaRue levers are nice, but would have protruded too far out the side, would have cost more, and may not have met the specs we were given. The ARMS levers offer a much lower profile and will work fine.
How do you deal with different rail dimensions without going to a tension-adjustable lever like LaRue's? What spec would have not been met if you used LaRue's?
I will not put an optic with an ARMS lever on any weapon I use, and as the "gun guy" on my team I won't let anyone else either.
We buy LaRue products out of pocket, as do most guys where I work. If there is no way to use it witout the ARMS levers they'll never leave the box. This is based solely on real world usage and a staggering amount of ARMS levers breaking. I cannot use something that I know is more likely to fail than work. YMMV
This is based solely on real world usage and a staggering amount of ARMS levers breaking. I cannot use something that I know is more likely to fail than work. YMMV
you mean i am not the only one to have the lever break?
The units sent down to Crane were pre-production samples. There were some issues with the mount being too loose, which is why the base is now going through redesign and is the reason for the delay in shipping. The 553 is not yet in series production and all issues regarding the mount will be sorted out before we begin shipping to USSOCOM and to our distributors. We are utilizing the ARMS levers, but the base is our own design. The only part being purchased from Arms is the little levers, not the entire base. The LaRue levers are nice, but would have protruded too far out the side, would have cost more, and may not have met the specs we were given. The ARMS levers offer a much lower profile and will work fine.
Receiver rail specs vary. ARMS levers do not adjust. This is pretty much it in a nut shell. ARMS Lever might start out tight on a rail, but will wear out over time (or break). I am afraid that the ARMS levers will end up making the 553 look bad and people will think it is EOTech's fault and hold them accountable.
C4
CapnCrunch
07-11-06, 23:46
Wouldn't you? ;)
I know I would.
I plan on doing a Larue upgrade to the 553...
I am afraid that the ARMS levers will end up making the 553 look bad and people will think it is EOTech's fault and hold them accountable.
C4
a prophetic prediction. +1.
give soccom what they spec. to the open market, give an option of the standard screw mount or other mounting options....
I'm a huge fan of the Eotech, and having it and my weapon/personal lights sharing the same battery is a big big plus.
I sincerely hope there will be an Eotech using cr123 and sans ARMS levers and at the previous height for compatibility with existing mounts.
For me, the difference between the my one ARMS mount and my one LaRue mount (Eotech) is that I can remove the LaRue mount as often as I want. The ARMS mount once I mount it, I leave it alone - so the for me, the levers just mean I don't need a specific tool for it.
I would not use the 553 (if I were to get one) on a weapon that I would want to regularly remove it.
Now if i could get a Garmin that uses cr123 batteries and a LaRue QD mount to mount it to my rails I'd be set! :p
I plan on doing a Larue upgrade to the 553...
I will have to agree with Kevin.
I might not like the spec ARMS levers, but I understand it from the Eotech point of view. SOCOM speced them and you give a customer what they ask for, even if you know a better option is out there. I would also assume a MIM ARMS lever is slightly cheaper on a cost per unit basis. Offering two different versions or even an option would be a logistical pain in the ass. I can see the lawsuit now if Eotech even accidentally sent a LaRue lever version to SOCOM. Dick and his lawyers would be in heaven.
It’s sad that I will have to spend the extra cash for the LaRue upgrade, but it’s probably a fact of life.
Receiver rail specs vary. ARMS levers do not adjust. This is pretty much it in a nut shell. ARMS Lever might start out tight on a rail, but will wear out over time (or break). I am afraid that the ARMS levers will end up making the 553 look bad and people will think it is EOTech's fault and hold them accountable.
C4
In light of Manx's explanation that the only ARMS-produced piece is the lever itself, would the fault then not lie with EoTech? Reason I ask is that I'm familar with Larue's levers, I've purchased a BUIS through you. There's more to a LaRue mount that just a lever. There's a tensioning nut and I suppose some internal clamp.
It seems to me the problem with ARMS products is their clamping design is insufficient given their lever design isn't adjustable. I.E, what's needed is an effective clamp to account for non-std rail dimensions. If EoTech is developing the clamp and just using an ARMS lever as the user interface to engage the clamp, I could see a stituation where there could be some finger pointing as to which company is at fault assuming this ends up being an issue.
Having said that I'm surprised why the LaRue might have failed a specification (not sure if it was interoperability or perfromance related, or if was just a case of LaRue doesn't equal ARMS) and also why it was deemed that LaRue's levers "stick out too far". I guess all the LaRue fielded equipment shares this same design defect and that such a defect compromises their operational effectiveness.
I plan on doing a Larue upgrade to the 553...
Won't work. The bottom section (which has the levers on it) also secures the electronics. Everything has to be installed at the factory. Believe me when I say that I already went down this road. :mad:
C4
Won't work. The bottom section (which has the levers on it) also secures the electronics. Everything has to be installed at the factory. Believe me when I say that I already went down this road. :mad:
C4
That comment is what I referred to back on page one.
a prophetic prediction. +1.
give soccom what they spec. to the open market, give an option of the standard screw mount or other mounting options....
Went down this road as well. I told EOTech I wanted to build a 553 with their standard base mount (this way if people want to raise it they can), Non NV, flat black with the CR123A batts and tethered battery cap. They liked the idea and I am willing to put the money to do it, but the project has not gone anywhere.
C4
In light of Manx's explanation that the only ARMS-produced piece is the lever itself, would the fault then not lie with EoTech? Reason I ask is that I'm familar with Larue's levers, I've purchased a BUIS through you. There's more to a LaRue mount that just a lever. There's a tensioning nut and I suppose some internal clamp.
It seems to me the problem with ARMS products is their clamping design is insufficient given their lever design isn't adjustable. I.E, what's needed is an effective clamp to account for non-std rail dimensions. If EoTech is developing the clamp and just using an ARMS lever as the user interface to engage the clamp, I could see a stituation where there could be some finger pointing as to which company is at fault assuming this ends up being an issue.
Having said that I'm surprised why the LaRue might have failed a specification (not sure if it was interoperability or perfromance related, or if was just a case of LaRue doesn't equal ARMS) and also why it was deemed that LaRue's levers "stick out too far". I guess all the LaRue fielded equipment shares this same design defect and that such a defect compromises their operational effectiveness.
The average consumer generally does not seperate things. All they know is that they bought it from EOTech and it failed to hold zero (or the lever broke). They will bad mouth EOTech all over the the "errornet." I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it as I have seen it before.
CRANE might has written the req to say that the mount could only be so wide or that the levers had to tuck under the optic. This pure speculation on my part.
C4
The average consumer generally does not seperate things. All they know is that they bought it from EOTech and it failed to hold zero (or the lever broke). They will bad mouth EOTech all over the the "errornet." I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it as I have seen it before.
CRANE might has written the req to say that the mount could only be so wide or that the levers had to tuck under the optic. This pure speculation on my part.
C4
Levers breaking, I see your point, but if EoTech insisted on engineering their own clamp, and it doesn't clamp, regardless of whether or not the fault lies with ARMS, EoTech shares some of the blame.
They have an obligation that if the govt directs usage of a substandard, or non-interoperable component, to notify the govt that their spec/requirement isn't achievable. I guess their only recourse would be to point to the defective govt supplied upper whose rails were out of spec, "It's not my mount's fault, it your weapon's fault", or "it's not my clamp's fault, it's your direction that I had to use ARMS levers that's the problem". This is a classic interoperability issue where there can be a lot of finger pointing. But you are right, if it gets to that point EoTech will end up looking like they're whining.
Levers breaking, I see your point, but if EoTech insisted on engineering their own clamp, and it doesn't clamp, regardless of whether or not the fault lies with ARMS, EoTech shares some of the blame.
They have an obligation that if the govt directs usage of a substandard, or non-interoperable component, to notify the govt that their spec/requirement isn't achievable. I guess their only recourse would be to point to the defective govt supplied upper whose rails were out of spec, "It's not my mount's fault, it your weapon's fault", or "it's not my clamp's fault, it's your direction that I had to use ARMS levers that's the problem". This is a classic interoperability issue where there can be a lot of finger pointing. But you are right, if it gets to that point EoTech will end up looking like they're whining.
I have spent some quality time with the 553 and the bracket is not what holds the EOTech to the rail. The ARMS levers do that. The bracket just holds the electronics in and is the interface for the ARMS levers to attach. The fact still remains that the ARMS levers do not adjust and rail specs vary.
I am very familiar on using the fraud/waste and abuse hotline. It is isn't that the ARMS lever won't work, its just that they won't work as well as a LT lever would.
C4
C4i- I thought from reading Manx's last post that the levers were just levers. I then inferred that Eotech was designing the clamping system. Therefore I'd think they might work much better than a 100%-ARMS clamping system.
But, you handled the 553 and said this is not the case. Perhaps that is exactly what is being worked out at the moment- How to use the ARMS levers and come up with a better clamping system and use the levers as simple levers.
CapnCrunch
07-12-06, 16:35
KevinB, if it ever becomes possible to get "the other" levers for the 553, I'll finance the change from the garbage "soft mount" to LaRue for you ;)
How do you deal with different rail dimensions without going to a tension-adjustable lever like LaRue's? What spec would have not been met if you used LaRue's?
If your rail meets Mil-Spec, there should not be an issue. To my knowledge, all of the rails shipped to the U.S. Military should be within specified tolerances, otherwise they would have been rejected during inspections. The 553 was designed for the U.S. Military. They are the paying customer. We designed what they asked for. All I can say is, "If it don't work, they're gonna make us fix it or they ain't gonna buy it."
I'm not sure whether or not the LaRue would have met spec. I am not an engineer and was not involved in the design of the 553 or in the discussions with Crane. I do believe the LaRue would have had to protrude out further so the nut can be adjusted. The ARMS levers provides a slimmer profile and tuck nicely under the hood where they cannot be snagged on webgear- if that matters at all.
The LaRue's are nice mounts. I use the LaRue base for the EOTech on one of my rifles. It's a good piece of kit, but I also have ARMS mounts on some of my rifles and I haven't encountered any problems with them. Of course, I'm not in the military. I'm just a lowly sales guy.
C4i- I thought from reading Manx's last post that the levers were just levers. I then inferred that Eotech was designing the clamping system. Therefore I'd think they might work much better than a 100%-ARMS clamping system.
But, you handled the 553 and said this is not the case. Perhaps that is exactly what is being worked out at the moment- How to use the ARMS levers and come up with a better clamping system and use the levers as simple levers.
The model I handled was a Shot. Let me fire off an e-mail and see if they changed something.
C4
If your rail meets Mil-Spec, there should not be an issue. To my knowledge, all of the rails shipped to the U.S. Military should be within specified tolerances, otherwise they would have been rejected during inspections. The 553 was designed for the U.S. Military. They are the paying customer. We designed what they asked for. All I can say is, "If it don't work, they're gonna make us fix it or they ain't gonna buy it."
I'm not sure whether or not the LaRue would have met spec. I am not an engineer and was not involved in the design of the 553 or in the discussions with Crane. I do believe the LaRue would have had to protrude out further so the nut can be adjusted. The ARMS levers provides a slimmer profile and tuck nicely under the hood where they cannot be snagged on webgear- if that matters at all.
The LaRue's are nice mounts. I use the LaRue base for the EOTech on one of my rifles. It's a good piece of kit, but I also have ARMS mounts on some of my rifles and I haven't encountered any problems with them. Of course, I'm not in the military. I'm just a lowly sales guy.
The Picatinny spec has variances in it.
Don't knock sales guys (as I am one). :D
C4
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/1913%20Picatinny%20spec.jpg
Receiver rail specs vary. ARMS levers do not adjust. This is pretty much it in a nut shell. ARMS Lever might start out tight on a rail, but will wear out over time (or break). I am afraid that the ARMS levers will end up making the 553 look bad and people will think it is EOTech's fault and hold them accountable.
C4
The optic itself is good stuff, but if you know there is a weak link it should be addressed beforehand rather than "Microsofting" it and shipping out bad goods and assuming a fix will come along.
Please L3, redesign the mount without those levers!
CapnCrunch
07-13-06, 17:57
In a perfect world, non-adjusting throwlevers would be ideal. Unfortunately, there is that +/- .002 on the rail spec which makes certain mounts very selective to whether or not they'll fit too tight, just right, or sloppy ass loose. Tack on that the mounts in question have their own tolerances which seem to vary, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Best case scenario:
EOTech made the clamp opposite of the lever adjustable, and did away with the "soft mount" pad that these particular mounts usually use. Then, the only real negative is that you're using a MIM throwlever.
Damn - I guess I mis-read the intitial - I thought it was going to be able to adapt to Larue levers.
Well I like my 552 on a Larue -- the only real advantage for the 553 to me was the C123's...
My 551's shit the bed in the cold so I dont go that route even for the smaller platfrom.
Damn - I guess I mis-read the intitial - I thought it was going to be able to adapt to Larue levers.
Well I like my 552 on a Larue -- the only real advantage for the 553 to me was the C123's...
My 551's shit the bed in the cold so I dont go that route even for the smaller platfrom.
If some of the real-deal folks like yourself, pass the word on to L3/Eotech that a 553 WITHOUT the ARMS mount and WITHOUT the additional height is what would be preferred, so it can be mounted on a LaRue mount, perhaps they will listen and build it.
I'm done -- I'm a money grubbing contractor now -- no one listens to us...
If some of the real-deal folks like yourself, pass the word on to L3/Eotech that a 553 WITHOUT the ARMS mount and WITHOUT the additional height is what would be preferred, so it can be mounted on a LaRue mount, perhaps they will listen and build it.
As I said in my earlier post, I offered to buy HUNDREDS of them and have not gotten anywhere. The main reason is that they are too busy to make anything other than what they have on their plate at the moment.
C4
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.