Opinion of an EoTech XPS2-0 purchase

[christcorp]

I was looking at buying a new optic for one of my AR's. Optics seem to be one of those things where the price for the same item can vary tremendously among different retailers. I was looking at getting a 512.a65, but there just wouldn't be enough physical room on my AR with the Rear sight in place. It's a fixed rear sight. Co-witnessing doesn't bother me. Especially a 1/3. But the 512 just wasn't going to fit. So I went with the XPS2-0. As a member of Sportsman's Guide.com, I can get some decent deals at times. I was able to get the XPS2-0 for $432.69. That includes shipping and handling. The free shipping I got was a 1 day special that I could use yesterday, because I missed their special last weekend. So I ordered it last night. However; I still have up til tomorrow to cancel this order if I need to.

My question is: Is $432.69 a decent price for the XPS2-0? If not; can you tell me of a better price, including shipping? I'm not too upset about an additional $5-$10, but if there's a significantly better price for a new one out there, I'd be interested. On Ebay, they were running about $480-$490 shipped. Retailers were all over the place. Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks. Mike....

[Failure2Stop]

Don't fret.
You did fine.

[5pins]

There is one in the EE new for $400.

[christcorp]

Thanks for the info. Based on yours, and other's opinions elsewhere, I think I was at about the best price in today's market.

I did see the one in the EE. I checked all the EE's on all the forums before looking retail. The $400 price, plus 4% for paypal, and whatever S/H would cost, was going to put it at almost the exact same price as the guaranteed new one with a return option. That item was actually one of the reasons I posted this thread. Based on the average of $475, I wasn't sure if $400 for a "Supposed" new was the price I should be looking for on a used one. But finding a used EoTech is a lot harder than finding a used Aimpoint.

Thanks for the info. I'm going to let the order ride. Thanks. Mike....

[zacbol]

That's a good price IMO. When I got mine, that was about the best price I was able to find (via Cal Sporting Armory).

[Tigereye]

You did fine.
Congrats!

[nickdrak]

You could have gotten the newer EXPS2-0 "OPMOD" version with the integral "lower- third" Riser/QD base from OpticsPlanet for slightly more ($505 w/ free shipping): http://www.opticsplanet.net/l3-eotech-opmod-exps2-holographic-sights-limited-edition-red-dot-sights-exps2-0-opmod.html

I run my XPS2-0 on a LaRue riser mount which gives a lower third co-wit and QD capability. I have been running this set-up since the XPS's first came out 2 years ago and I love it. I highly recommend the LaRue riser mount if you have enough room on your receiver for it to fit.

ETA: If you do decide to get the OPMOD from OpticsPlanet make sure you order the version that is listed as "OPMOD w/ 65 MOA ring and 1MOA dot reticle" for $505. The other one that is $10 cheaper has the two 1MOA dots inside of the 65MOA ring.

[christcorp]

I appreciate the info nick, but I already ordered the XPS2-0. Other than the controls on the side, I don't really have a need to spend the extra $70 for the EXPS2.

As for a riser, I'm going to wait til I get the xps2. My rear and front sights are adjustable for both windage and elevation. I might be able to lower my rear sight far enough to cowitness at close 1/3. Then I can match the front sight to the rear. We'll see. If that doesn't work, then I'll look into a larue or a Yankee eotech riser. Thanks... mike....

[nickdrak]

Ok, but you cant just adjust your iron sights low enough to be in the lower third of your optics and still have them zeroed. You need to raise your optic if you want a lower third co-witness.

[Robb Jensen]

I'm currently using a XPS2-0 on my KAC SR15. It's working well with no issues. I adusted the 1 MOA dot to be right on the front sight post (irons were sighted in for 50yds). Then I sighted the EOTech in for 50yds and it was off 1 click of elevation and 3 clicks off on windage. I really like that this EOTech doesn't need a riser and the integral QD mount. And the much more common 123 battery is a plus.

[christcorp]

Ok, but you cant just adjust your iron sights low enough to be in the lower third of your optics and still have them zeroed. You need to raise your optic if you want a lower third co-witness.

Sure you can; if the sights will adjust enough. "Not saying my can or can't." If I lower my rear sight, I can sight it back in by lowering the front sight. I may not get them low enough to be 1/3rd, but I might get them low enough that it's satisfactory. Lowering both iron sights is the same as raising the scope. We'll see after I receive the eotech.

[nickdrak]

Sure you can;

Okay.

[Ironbutt]

$432 sounds like a good price to me. I paid alot more than that for mine. Mine was absolute co-witness when I mounted it. I later got a LaRue QD mount for it, which makes it lower 1/3. I bought the LaRue mount so I can change out from the XPS to my AP M3 & switch them to different rifles quickly. I love those QD mounts. They're rock solid & return to zero every time.

If you choose to go the QD route, LaRue has decent prices on combo's, that usually add up to a little savings over purchasing the optic & mount separately. Great people to deal with, too.

[christcorp]

Okay.

Nick, not trying to argue, but I'm wondering if we're saying the same thing or misunderstanding each other. Using basic trig/geometry, let me ask a simple question so that i can better understand what you're saying.

Assuming it's physically possible:

If you have a red dot, e.g. EoTech, that co-witnesses absolutely with a set of iron sights, and everything is sighted in perfectly, what is the physical/mathematical difference between:

1. RAISING the EoTech 1/3" so the iron sights are viewed lower in the co-witness..... OR
2. LOWERING the iron sights 1/3" so the iron sights are viewed lower in the co-witness?

My point was: Assuming that BOTH the rear and front iron sight were capable of being physically RAISED or LOWERED, that lowering them would accomplish the exact same thing as raising the scope. Do you disagree with this? Thanks. Mike.....

[nickdrak]

If you have a red dot, e.g. EoTech, that co-witnesses absolutely with a set of iron sights, and everything is sighted in perfectly, what is the physical/mathematical difference between:

1. RAISING the EoTech 1/3" so the iron sights are viewed lower in the co-witness..... OR
2. LOWERING the iron sights 1/3" so the iron sights are viewed lower in the co-witness?

My point was: Assuming that BOTH the rear and front iron sight were capable of being physically RAISED or LOWERED, that lowering them would accomplish the exact same thing as raising the scope. Do you disagree with this? Thanks. Mike.....

Mike,

Whether they are fixed or of the flip-up variety, the only portion of your front & rear iron sights that you can mechanically lower is the apertures. Adjusting/lowering the apertures in your iron sights enough so that they are in the lower 1/3 of your optics sight picture will result in your iron sights being adjusted out of zero. Regardless of how much you lower your apertures of your iron sights, the ears or frame of the front and most rear sights will still be visible in the center of your sight picture thru your Eotech XPS if it is mounted directly onto the receiver and not on a riser mount like the LaRue or the integral mount of the newer EXPS models.

There is a reason that most optic mount manufacturers standard mounts are all "Lower Third" height.

Red dot optics work in a completely different manner than iron sights do. A red dot sight is a completely separate sighting device from your iron sights. An optic does not require alignment with a front and rear sighting device, it simply superimposes a dot or reticle onto the target.

[christcorp]

Nick; thanks for the response. Trying to co-witness for me, isn't so much about lining up my irons with the eotech and using it that way. My desire is to have the iron sights available if needed, but somewhat out of the way. My front sight is a fold down, so that's not an issue. But my rear sight does adjust for elevation. The entire sight adjusts. It's a low profile that will adjust quite high in elevation. I am able to, with my existing sights and reflex, have absolute co-witness. I set it up so the rear sight was adjusted max elevation, and I adjusted the front elevation for zero. At this setting, the rear sight is absolute in co-witnessing. Right in the middle of my reflex sight. On paper, my reflex is the same physical height as the eotech, so it should line up similar. I won't know for sure until i receive it. But with the existing rear sight, if I lower the rear sight completely; "Literally takes a couple of seconds", I can get the rear sight below the middle eye sight of the reflex sight. Low enough that I can use the red-dot, in the middle of the sight lens, and not be blocked by the rear sight. This is totally acceptable. I could go with a fold down rear sight, but i like this sight and don't want to change it out.

My point before was that whether you physically lower the iron sights or you raise the optical sight, you have accomplished the exact thing. I have no desire to actually shoot with co-existence. I personally believe that lining up a rear sight, into the red-dot, and superimposing it on a front sight...... Well, in my opinion, it's about the stupidest thing you can do for "PRACTICAL SHOOTING". It takes a lot longer to line up that shot, and you totally defeat the purpose of the red-dot. For the person who is using the weapon for non-practical shooting, like competition and marksmanship shooting, it's probably pretty cool. For the person who would use it for offensive/defensive purposes against another human, it isn't at all practical.

So I think i can lower the sights far enough that it would work. Will it be as low as 1/3 co-witness? No. But it will be better than absolute. If I wanted to, I could adjust the front sight to match lowering the rear, and leave it that way. And I might do that. I have a millett sight that I used back about 20 years ago. It doesn't have ears. It's set up similar to a dovetail on a front open sight lever action. "Similar, not exact". Similar to traditional front sights, but without the ears. The front sights are interchangeable. So once i get the eotech in, "tuesday", I'll see what my options are. Like i said; i want the lower co-existence, NOT to use for shooting the irons and eotech together. I want it lower, so I don't have to use the iron sights at the same time as the red-dot.

[Failure2Stop]

My point was: Assuming that BOTH the rear and front iron sight were capable of being physically RAISED or LOWERED, that lowering them would accomplish the exact same thing as raising the scope. Do you disagree with this? Thanks. Mike.....

I disagree.

While you can achieve cowitness at a plane below center-optic LOS over rail, going lower than the standard is not conducive to the application of sights at speed. One thing Stoner definately did well was BUIS design.

[christcorp]

I disagree.

While you can achieve cowitness at a plane below center-optic LOS over rail, going lower than the standard is not conducive to the application of sights at speed. One thing Stoner definately did well was BUIS design.

So you're telling me that raising the optics .300 inches HIGHER than the normal plane in relationship to the iron sights, is different than lowering the iron sights .300 inches lower than the normal plane in relationship to the optics? Hmmm. Guess all those years of trigonometry and geometry were a waste of money.

If you're talking about the trajectory impact at 400 yards, that there's a difference by lowering the iron sights..... I'd probably agree to that. But I don't believe that a .3" deviation will have a noticeable affect on a target at 100-200 yards max; which is what the AR/M16 was designed for. It wasn't designed to be a 300+ yard sniper rifle. Not even the caliber and ammo was designed for that. But mathematically, there will be a trajectory difference if you move the sights. But that .3" wouldn't even be noticeable.

[Failure2Stop]

I'm talking about rapid, precise, first round hits.
ETA- Specifically related to presentation, and rapidly dropping into the BUIS in the even of primary optic failure.
But you don't have to spend years in a classroom to understand why that would be desirable.

[nickdrak]

My point/question is: How do you lower your iron sights 1/3" below where they are currently zeroed at in-order to clear up the field of view thru your optic a bit and still maintain a useable "Zero" with the iron sights? Is that even possible?

[eldogg]

that's a good price. i paid $439 shipped for mine.

[Failure2Stop]

My point/question is: How do you lower your iron sights 1/3" below where they are currently zeroed at in-order to clear up the field of view thru your optic a bit and still maintain a useable "Zero" with the iron sights? Is that even possible?

It's not that big of a deal. The LOS with A2 irons is about 2.6 inches above the line of bore. Going to tall mounts like the LaRue tall SPR puts the optic at or damn near 3" over. That .4 inch does make a slight difference, but it's pretty negligable.

[christcorp]

I purposely put a folding standard height front sight, and a fixed low profile sight on the rear. The rear requires me to put it at max height to be standard and be mid-way absolute co-witness. I sighted in the front with the rear at MAX HEIGHT.

Now; if i want to lower my rear sight all the way back down to the lowest profile, I can reduce the height by more than .300". I then readjust the front lower to get me back to zero. When I use the optics, I fold the front sight down, and the rear is far enough down that I can use the optics without looking through the rear sight. Is it as low/good as having a true 1/3 co-witness? No, it's not. But it is low enough that I can have the red dot in the middle of the optics, and see it without looking through the rear sight. That's good enough for me. Remember; I don't want iron sights that co-witness. I want iron sights that "Co-EXIST". I have no desire to look THROUGH a rear iron sight, to match up a red dot to a front sight. What a major waist of time. However; if the battery is dead, I don't want to have to remove the optics to get the iron sights usable.

Could I have gone with a folding sight in the rear also? Yes. But I already had this rear sight, and I really like it. It's centered real well, I've had it for a long time, I like how I view through it, etc... But I did say that if for some reason this solution isn't good enough when I get my eotech for this gun, that I might have to look at other options. 1) EOTech riser. 2) Folding rear sight. 3) Quick Disconnect for the EOTech. Probably option 1 or 3.

Anyway, that's not what this thread started out as. It was about the price of the EOTech i got. But it was nice to have a discussion that remained civil, non-arrogant, or rude. That can sometimes be a problem. It was refreshing to discuss, learn, disagree, etc... and still maintain respect for each other. Rare, but nice. Thanks for all the input and opinions. Mike....

[Failure2Stop]

Who makes your rear?
Could you post a pic of your rig?
I'm just interested to actually see what it looks like.

Anyway, if your front sight is at standard height, and you are zeroed, then your rear sight is essentially at standard height, otherwise you would be experiencing severely low POI.

BTW- you are absolutely right, there is a serious thread-drift here. I can cut this thread in two; if you have a preference, let me know via PM.

[Crow Hunter]

Sorry to contribute to thread drift, but I am really confused at this point.

Correct me if I am wrong on your givens here:

Folding front sight - Standard 2.6" height over bore
Eotech XPS - Absolute Cowitness mount (Standard 2.6" height over bore for centered viewing)
Fixed Rear sight - I assume that it is designed to work on the Standard 2.6" height over bore.

Now you are saying that you are lowering your rear sight aperature (I assume) by .3" and correspondingly lowering the post (I assume) in your front sight by the same amount to give you the same zero distance so that you can keep the Absolute Cowitness mount and "make it like" a lower 1/3.

Is that what you are talking about?

I don't know that you can get that much travel out of the sights and still get them to zero, I have never tried that.

My concern is that in lowering your sights you are really going to have to mash your face into the stock to see through them if you are taking them much below the 2.6" sight line.

Will the base of the Eotech be in the way of your sight line that low?

I am also interested in seeing your adjustable rear sight.

[christcorp]

I've gotten everything I needed to out of the thread. It was mainly for the first day or two, while I still had the chance to cancel my EoTech on order. But we're beyond that. it will be here Tuesday. The thread can remain open or be closed; it's all good by me. I appreciate everyone's input. Oh; the rear sight is a yankee hill. It's an older model of the 643, but it looks the same.
http://rangersales.com/images/YHM-643K.jpg

[Failure2Stop]

How do you know that the sight is "lower than standard"?

[Failure2Stop]

Wait a second.
I just reread the thread, and I see the disconnect.

1/3 of and inch is a shit-load of adjustment in iron sights, especially in the front sight. What you are seeing as the "tall" position of the rear sight is actually your 600 meter zero if you are zeroed by the military standard on your rear. When there is no gap in the rear sight you have no more downward travel in the rear elevation, and will have to do everything on the front sight, but you will most likely not have enough adjustment.

Can what you are talking about work? Yes, theoretically. But there is a reason that we achieve lower 1/3 cowitness the way we do: it actually works and has a shitload of historical data to support it.

If you want to try to make this work your unique way, rock on, but you will start to introduce conflict into your sighting arraingement.

Have fun.

[christcorp]

I have it working currently with a reflex sight; which sits about the same height as the EOTech will. I've already said that it's NOT TRUE 1/3 co-witness. But it is lower than absolute co-witness. It is low enough that the red-dot is in the middle of the screen, without having to look through the rear sight. Is it perfect? No. Will it work? Yes. Will I leave it like that? I don't know.

Most of my guns are projects. I play and experiment with guns, then I sell them and start another project. I'm on my 3rd Saiga, 4th cetme, and 3rd AK. Will I finish up and sell this AR? Probably not. I like this one too much. Except for iron sights, the eotech, and a vertical grip and laser, it is all stock and I have no desire to change that. For true defensive purposes, I prefer to keep it at the simplest possible. I don't need quad rails and other things. I have replaced 2 internal parts. I put in a Bravo Company Mod-3 charging handle. I am left handed, so it makes it easier for me to chamber the first round. "I don't like ambi handles". I also replaced the buffer with an ST-T2. Not to change ejection, but to smooth out and quiet the recoil. It has done that. Other than that, nothing has been changed. If I sell an AR, it would be my frankenstein.

Maybe I'll eventually get a Yankee EOTech riser. Maybe I won't need to. I'll find out next week once the EOTech arrives. My other red-dots have their own riser built into them, designed specifically for co-exiting. "I don't like the term Co-Witness, because I'll NEVER look through iron sights to line up a red dot. That's a wast of time in my opinion".

[Crow Hunter]

Do you have any problem with getting a good sight picture through your irons now?

I have my Aimpoint setup with a 1/3 mount and I notice a difference when I drop to the 2.6" sightline versus the 2.8 or so sightline of my Aimpoint.

I would have thought you would have to really mash down into the stock to get below the 2.6" to the point of it affecting your ability to center the sights in the aperature.

Maybe I just have chubby cheeks.:D

If you ever try a lower 1/3 mount (as in a 1.75" mount as opposed to a 1.5" mount), you will wonder where it has been all of your life.:jester:

[christcorp]

Actually, the irons aren't that bad the way they are. I don't have to crush down much. Probably would have to with a traditional A1 M16 stock, because you are further back. But with the stand T6 type M4 stocks, it's fine. Then again, the iron sights are only there as a backup. I wouldn't use them as a primary sight.

Come next week when i get the EOTech, there's a lot of variables. Distance between the EOtech and the rear sight. The initial height of the EOTech; if it's much different than my reflex. "I think they're the same." Is the screen size different. etc... That is the reason I mentioned in the much earlier post, that I'm not making any decision about the rear sight until I get the EOTech. It might work fine the way I have it now. Maybe it won't. I'm just not the type of person who buys something because others say I have to. There are those that love spending $125 on a Larue EOTech riser. Is it really any different than the $40 Yankee Hill EOTech riser?...... NO! But they'll pay more because it's a quick disconnect, or the extra pici for a magnifier. But for actually raising the Eotech, they both do exactly what they are suppose to. Point is, these are "Toys" for us. What we do to our weapons are 95% "Big boys Toys" and 5% for actual functionality.

And that's OK. I do the say as everyone else. I just bought my 3rd safe, because I ran out of space for guns. Do I "Need" that many guns? No. In all reality, I probably need 1 of my hunting rifles. "My 7mm mag will shoot any live animal in north america". Probably 1 shotgun. Probably one home defense wheel gun. 1 Concealed carry. And possibly a 22lr for survival. But I can afford anything I want to buy, ever, so I buy a lot. Nothing wrong with that.

I only bring this up, because this thread definitely drifted beyond the original question of whether $432 was a decent price for a shipped brand new, with warranty EOTech XPS2-0. Maybe I'll need a riser to make my iron sights work. Maybe I won't. I just prefer to wait and see if what worked in the past with my other red-dots will work here. If it does; great. if not, i'll look at my options.

[Steve S.]

You don't need to look through your irons when co-witnessing with the eotech. Shooting properly with both eyes open and you just don't focus on the irons.

It's like saying the windshield wipers are too distracting to see through the windshield. You don't focus on them, you just look through them.