Nevermind. Don’t feed the troll.
Printable View
Nevermind. Don’t feed the troll.
When I was still training I had nothing but bad experiences with Eotechs to the point that I quit messing with them. I would just have the student take it off and run irons. Because if you’re going to depend on an EoTech, you need to be good with irons.
I understand that some SOF use them, and that’s wonderful.
But in an LE and regular joe environment, they are among the least reliable optics I’ve ever seen, no matter the model.
Eotech addressed their shortcomings in around 2017. Units made after 2017 are much improved units that have proven reliable. By the way, all optics have some thermal drift.
Your comprehension skills are lacking. No where did I say I know what's best for anyone. What I did say is that servicemen don't pick nor pay for their gear. They use what's issued. the SOF community has more lattitude in selection than regular units. That doesn't mean the members are well versed in the particulars of their gear. An SOF guy running an Eotech(and a PEQ of some sort with IR and visible lasers , and irons) for CQB work under NOD's within a team environment is not the same as Joe Public needing a reliable optic for HD, hog hunting, competition etc. I'm not posting my wisdom, I'm posting the hard facts that EOTech admitted to when they got caught and sued by the gov. Their optics have been shit almost from day one. They offer zero advantages over other reliable red dot brands.
Nope, they weren't. They removed some of their claimed specs for the sights, but problems of parasitic battery drain and reticle dimming continue. They admit the reticle adjustment subtensions are "approximately 1/2 MOA". Submersible to 33 feet, compared to Aimpoint sights which range from 80-150 feet for the Acro, M4, T1, M5, and PRO. Eotech sights weigh more, are larger dimensionally and have pathetic battery life by comparison. And of course, they lied to the world and sold defective sights for nearly a decade. It's your money, but I see nothing special about them and wouldn't give my money to a company that puts lives at risk in exchange for profit.
- They are better suited for use for passive aiming under NODs, due to window size, superior light transmission, and switchology.
- They have a center dot that is much smaller than any RDS, making them able to aim at finer points when using a magnifier.
Pretty niche, but not zero. I switched from an Aimpoint CompM5 to an EOTech EXPS3-2 specifically to optimize one of my SBRs for NODs use. I would loved to have grabbed a Vortex UH-1 GEN II instead, but the UH-1 sadly seemed like it remained the inferior product for use with NODs, splitting the performance difference between an EXPS and a CompM4.
The 65 MOA circle also tends to get shooters on target faster.
But that’s not a real advantage according to the hard facts so guess I’ll go **** myself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I had originally listed that as an advantage, but took it out after some thought since there are enough RDSes that can do that kind of reticle to not let it be a strictly EOTech advantage, such as the MRO HD, the various Holosuns, and some of the SIGs.
Thought I suppose the Leupold LCO allegedly also does pretty does pretty well for passive aiming under NODs, besides the switchology part.