View Full Version : EOTech vs T1 lenses
I like the size of the T1 and it seems like a really good sight by all the reviews I've read. My only concern is how small the lense is. When you bring the gun up to shoot, does the dot easily come into view? Or is it like lining up iron sights. You have to be totally in line. I currently run a EOTech 512 and I like how you can aquire the target with or with out a good cheek weld. I know there has to be a difference due to the size of the lenses, but is it a real issue?
I run an EOTech and an H1 on separate guns.
Shooting with both eyes open, its a non-issue. The EOTech, to me, is a little more forgiving, but not by much, in my experience.
Excellent. That's what I wanted to hear. I shoot with both eyes open too. That's what sold me on the EOTech and not the ACOG. I will get one coming.
mkmckinley
08-28-11, 12:40
FWIW I've used Eotechs at work extensively and I buy Aimpoints for my own rifles. I don't have a problem finding the dot on the Aimpoints.
The EOTech, to me, is a little more forgiving, but not by much, in my experience.
At the risk of quoting myself, I should add that I still find the H1 dot just fine with a good cheek weld, and even with a not-so-good cheek weld. Sighting through the Aimpoint, I'm no slower than with an EOTech, and I lose no situational awareness.
The ease of finding the EOTech reticle doesn't make up for its short battery life and inability to stay on. Of the 2 ARs I have, the H1 is on the gun I stake my life on everyday.
thopkins22
08-28-11, 13:31
I like the size of the T1 and it seems like a really good sight by all the reviews I've read. My only concern is how small the lense is. When you bring the gun up to shoot, does the dot easily come into view? Or is it like lining up iron sights. You have to be totally in line. I currently run a EOTech 512 and I like how you can aquire the target with or with out a good cheek weld. I know there has to be a difference due to the size of the lenses, but is it a real issue?
It's not an issue. But there is an issue if you think that you don't need to be "perfectly in line" with options other than iron sights.
Small changes in your cheek weld can mean big differences in POI at all but fairly close distances...zero parallax or not. Will perfect marksmanship always be possible? Clearly not, but you should strive for it with every shot no matter what wiz-bang optic/gadget you have.
It's not an issue. But there is an issue if you think that you don't need to be "perfectly in line" with options other than iron sights.
Small changes in your cheek weld can mean big differences in POI at all but fairly close distances...zero parallax or not. Will perfect marksmanship always be possible? Clearly not, but you should strive for it with every shot no matter what wiz-bang optic/gadget you have.
Exactly! Beat me to it. You should always practice to have a consistent cheek weld. When I have the time to practice enough, I can almost shoulder a weapon and fire with my dot off and my BUIS flipped DOWN and still make hits due to a consistent (and correct) cheek weld. Always drill in consistency into your practice.
The only time I've ever found it difficult to acquire the dot in my T-1 is when shooting on your back with the gun pulled forward using sling tension to stabilize the gun. Of course if you're doing that the attacker is probably so close that it doesn't matter anyway. With any sort of cheek weld it's not a problem at all.
The only time I've ever found it difficult to acquire the dot in my T-1 is when shooting on your back with the gun pulled forward using sling tension to stabilize the gun. Of course if you're doing that the attacker is probably so close that it doesn't matter anyway. With any sort of cheek weld it's not a problem at all.
This, and it can be ameliorated to some degree by mounting the T-1 further back to maximize FOV through the optic (I find no practical difference between a 20mm Micro mounted back and a 30mm Aimpoint mounted further forward).
Tomac
I do practice with a good cheek weld, what I mean to say is when bringing the gun up to shoot, before your cheek gets welded, the EOTech reticle comes into view pretty fast and by the time my cheek is welded I'm pulling the trigger. Sounds like it's no issue with the T1.
I have a T-1 and a few Eotechs. I'm not a huge fan of the small tube on the T-1. One eye or both eyes open, you do have to be closer in line on the T-1 in order to pick up the dot. I also find it to have occasional annoying internal reflections, and the 4 MOA dot isn't actually a dot, it's more of a comma. The battery life advantage is a total non-issue for me, as is the fact that the Eotechs shut off after 8 hours (I acknowledge these may be important in some applications for some people..just not for me). Bottom line, I definitely prefer the EXPS Eotechs over the T-1.
I have a T-1 and a few Eotechs. I'm not a huge fan of the small tube on the T-1. One eye or both eyes open, you do have to be closer in line on the T-1 in order to pick up the dot. I also find it to have occasional annoying internal reflections, and the 4 MOA dot isn't actually a dot, it's more of a comma. The battery life advantage is a total non-issue for me, as is the fact that the Eotechs shut off after 8 hours (I acknowledge these may be important in some applications for some people..just not for me). Bottom line, I definitely prefer the EXPS Eotechs over the T-1.
I have two T1's and both are round dots for the most part, they are somewhat pixelated if you look close, but defenitely round.
ETA: I remember reading a thread where a shooter would percieve the dot as not being round but irregular and a different shooter looking through the same sight saw it round. So, theres a possibility your eyes may not pick up the dot the same way we all do.
Typically whe you don't see a round dot, it's because you have an astigmatism. I have a very slight one but I've found I can work around it easily.
Typically whe you don't see a round dot, it's because you have an astigmatism. I have a very slight one but I've found I can work around it easily.
Yeh, I know...but I don't have any astigmatism. Anyway, I consider that issue along with the 4 MOA dot to be minor aspects of my dissatisfaction with the T-1.
I do have an Aimpoint PRO...in fact just delivered earlier today. I haven't shot it yet, but in my workshop I have no problem acquiring the dot on that 30mm tube. And the 2 MOA dot is nice and crisp, not comma-shaped. I'm interested to see how it shoots, but so far I like it.
I like the size of the T1 and it seems like a really good sight by all the reviews I've read. My only concern is how small the lense is. When you bring the gun up to shoot, does the dot easily come into view? Or is it like lining up iron sights. You have to be totally in line. I currently run a EOTech 512 and I like how you can aquire the target with or with out a good cheek weld. I know there has to be a difference due to the size of the lenses, but is it a real issue?
Very easy to pick up the dot. Shoot with both eyes open and you will always pick up the target fast.
C4
The dot on my T-1 is comma like also. However, I've found that the higher you turn up the intensity of the dot the more comma shaped it becomes. I keep my dot intensity on 7-8 and it's round. I also have a Eotech 553 and I really like the 65moa ring with the 1moa center dot. I wish the T-1 had the same reticle. I have mounted my T-1 farther back on my rail fairly close to my rear Buis. Easy to acquire dot and shoot with both eyes open. Size of the tube doesn't come into play for me that way.
Thanks for all the replies. I will get one ordered before my wife finds out my new LMT STD I picked up last weekend and beats my ass.
Belmont31R
08-29-11, 18:28
For me the dot shape on the T1 depends on the lighting. Inside it can appear slightly out of round. Outdoors under good natural light its always a perfect dot.
Will perfect marksmanship always be possible? Clearly not, but you should strive for it with every shot no matter what wiz-bang optic/gadget you have.
Please explain this reasoning. If you get your hits, why does every shot need to be perfect, or at least strived for? Hammer pairs only get one sight picture, but for some reason, they bullets go right around where they need to. Combat accuracy and paper punching are different things. Red dots are not precision optics and really shouldn't be used as such IMO. Upper chest, right around the heat and lungs at 200, and accuracy of head shots at 100 yards off hand are what should be strived for.
thopkins22
08-30-11, 15:58
Please explain this reasoning. If you get your hits, why does every shot need to be perfect, or at least strived for? Hammer pairs only get one sight picture, but for some reason, they bullets go right around where they need to. Combat accuracy and paper punching are different things. Red dots are not precision optics and really shouldn't be used as such IMO. Upper chest, right around the heat and lungs at 200, and accuracy of head shots at 100 yards off hand are what should be strived for.
Because you're accountable for every single shot. Because a change in cheek weld can easily put you off of the head and chest at closer than one and two hundred yards. Because when people with real experience shooting people in the face say something about how to shoot, I listen.
I'm not saying every shot needs to be(or even can be) perfect(though in my opinion they ought to have a sight picture except at very close distances.) I am saying that at the distances you mentioned, and engaged in "combat," you're joking yourself(and worse you're putting innocent lives behind your target in danger) if you think you can hit a hiding/running/SHOOTING target without applying some marksmanship and not assuming that you have some mythical hammering ability to hit everything under the sun...or that miraculously, you're the only person in the world that a red dot won't shift zero on when you change your cheek weld, and you'll still be able to hit the exposed 1/4 of a torso anyway.
I'm not advocating bullseye/high power type stuff here...just trying to keep this conversation based around what actually happens when you shoot the rifle.
ETA:Combat accuracy is a term I think is highly overused. You're either able to hit shit or you aren't. Perhaps combat speed would be better. You're either able to hit shit in a timely manner or you aren't.
or that miraculously, you're the only person in the world that a red dot won't shift zero on when you change your cheek weld,
Interesting, I always considered it not miracle but feature. I even tested specifically against it with Aimpoint (C3, M4s and T1) seemed to hold zero with non-centered eyesight up to almost edge of the sight. Tested at 50m and 100m.
I tough that primary reason why good RDS (like from Aimpoint) is so fast and accurate is because it does not require precise cheek weld. Am I wrong on that?
thopkins22
08-30-11, 18:15
Am I wrong on that?
Yes. The effect may be less noticeable than with other options, but it still exists.
Hammer pairs only get one sight picture, but for some reason, they bullets go right around where they need to.
I dont know who trained you to shoot "hammer pairs" out of one sight picture, but at least in the LE world every pull of the trigger requires you to maintain sight picture.
Hammer pairs only get one sight picture, but for some reason, they bullets go right around where they need to.
"Hammer pairs" or "controlled pairs" (as they're more accurately called) require a separate sight picture. Granted the second shot might be a "flash" sight picture, but you still have to aim that second shot of the pair. The more you train, the more accurate that second "flash" sight picture will be.
As I was taught, anyway.
A "hammer" is in fact two rapid shots following the first sight picture. Usually the second shot will be slightly higher than the first. It is useful at close range. If you are acquiring a second sight picture, then you are firing a controlled pair, not a hammer.
But this has nothing to do with Aimpoints or Eotechs.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.