Vortex AMG UH-1 now NV Compatible - True Eotech Killer now?

[Furbyballer]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CAdh9mzB..._web_copy_link

As an avid NV user it really bummed me out when vortex revealed the UH-1 and it turned out to not be NV compatible and thus I never looked at it again. With a NV capable model dropping in July and vortex's customer service does this catapult the UH-1 into a competitive spot to make a real run at eotech?

[grizzlyblake]

I think we will have to wait and see once the product is released.

Some of the complaints about the original UH1 were:

1. Too large/boxy profile
2. Scratchable plastic lenses
3. Losing reticle at edges of the windows
4. Nobody cares about the USB charging plug

I would like to see the newer model have improved lens material, no gimmicky USB deal, and better battery life, along with the obvious NV. If they can remain less expensive than the EOTech I think they will have a strong product.

I am watching with interest.

[RHINOWSO]

"XYZ KILLER now...?"

Probably the dumbest statement in the gun industry, right beside "Taking another ROUTE" when selling like new stuff that sucks but you don't want to say it sucks.

Good for Vortex, they probably saw SIGs Romeo 8T being asked for and decided it time to make it NV capable.

[caporider]

[WickedWillis]

The UH1 grew on me. I did not like it when I shot it on a PWS reps PCC after it launched. However a few months ago I shot one on a Kriss vector and the glass (Plastic I guess) looked cleaner and sharper than I remembered.

I would buy an NV capable one if they are still as crisp, and if they figured out a solid battery life expectation with it. I'm guessing NV will hurt the battery life though. Hopefully it's a push button activation like Eotech

[Rogue556]

Has anyone with an astigmatism compared the UH1 side by side with an EXPS3? I like the EXPS3 for the most part, but the reticle is worse than my Aimpoints (to my eyes at least).

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

[Defaultmp3]

An interesting thing is that Vortex does not advertise the UH-1 to have its dot grow under a magnifier, while EOTech does state that this is the case with their HWSes; that is to say, the 1 MOA dot on the EOTech does not grow to become being perceived as a 3 MOA dot with a 3x magnifier. EOTech explicitly states that on their website as a feature to pick an HWS over an RDS: https://www.eotechinc.com/holographi...-red-dot-sight

In fact, Vortex has actually explicitly rejected that argument (https://www.reddit.com/r/VortexAnswe...igger_but_not/), and the EOTech technical support person I spoke to over the phone basically said the same thing as the Vortex argument, that the truth is that the so-called 1 MOA dot is much smaller than 1 MOA, it's just that our eyes will see it as 1 MOA when unmagnified due to bloom and other perception issues, while under magnification, we still see at approximately 1 MOA because of perceptual issues, and that we would have to blow it up to much bigger before the limits of human perception is overcome and we can see a larger dot under magnification.

I got into a debate about this elsewhere, and the argument that the other person provided was that collimated light does not behave like normal light, and does not magnify linearly like a normal projected LED dot; there certainly is truth behind that statement, but I don't know enough about HWSes to determine if the image that the magnifier/human eye would see is consisting of collimated light, though I do agree that collimated light is integral to the creation of the hologram in the first place. If true, I could see the argument being that the collimated light does not magnify by any practical purpose, and if the so-called 1 MOA dot consists of only a single point of collimated light, then this could be reconciled with both EOTech's marketing claims, and the Vortex statements, as the single point would not magnify, but our eye would continue to register it as 1 MOA across different magnification ranges because of its tiny size. However, if that center dot is actually consisted of multiple points of collimated light, then that argument falls apart, as while each point does not magnify, the overall image will get larger, even if the image does not get perceived as larger with the lower range of magnification that most magnifiers offer.

[Furbyballer]

Based on that picture it looks like they moved away from the usb charge port?

[WickedWillis]

Has anyone with an astigmatism compared the UH1 side by side with an EXPS3? I like the EXPS3 for the most part, but the reticle is worse than my Aimpoints (to my eyes at least).

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Mine is the opposite. My Aimpoint Pro is good, I see a semi-round dot. My T1 is terrible, It looks like a blooming comet falling straight down.

My EXPS3 is better than any of my aimpoints for that. If I focus on the ring itself, sure I get little holographic hot spots, but no when focusing on target. The UH1 was not as clean to me as the Eotech reticle.

[Rogue556]

Mine is the opposite. My Aimpoint Pro is good, I see a semi-round dot. My T1 is terrible, It looks like a blooming comet falling straight down.

My EXPS3 is better than any of my aimpoints for that. If I focus on the ring itself, sure I get little holographic hot spots, but no when focusing on target. The UH1 was not as clean to me as the Eotech reticle.

Yeah, it seems like it varies so much from person to person that the only way around it is to try them all out, which is unfortunate because that gets expensive.

Oddly enough, my M68/Comp M2 with a 4 MOA dot is probably one of the cleanest to my eyes. My Comp M5 is next best, followed by my T2. I ditched my T1 for the same reason. It was about on par with my EoTech. Every time I got behind either of those I end up with some goofy Mickey Mouse head shaped reticle instead of a clean dot. A G33 magnifier behind my Aimpoints actually cleans up the dot, while the same magnifier behind my EoTech actually makes the issue more noticeable.

Of course none of those issues are all that bad up close, but become a pain trying to get a solid zero or making good hits past 200 without magnification.

I haven't jumped on the general purpose LPVO train just yet, but my eyes are starting to push me that direction.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk