Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Eotech Overheating?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    638
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Defaultmp3 View Post
    • 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.
    Yes, a very niche role that most won't need or use. It offers a slightly easier/better view under NOD's but not amazing. An Aimpoint or other dot with a proper mount works just as well. The finer centre dot is not a benefit. It's a red dot optic, speed is the goal not precision. Using a magnifier is a bandaid solution to an LPVO. There is no free lunch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake27 View Post
    The 65 MOA circle also tends to get shooters on target faster.

    But thatís not a real advantage according to the hard facts so guess Iíll go **** myself.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Myself and others disagree. The ring doesn't make you faster, it just permits sloppy shots at short range. The same is achieved with a "good enough" sight picture with a simple dot sight. Either way, with practice and proper mounting of the rifle to the shoulder, the dot is on target regardless of which reticle you use. The one advantage I do see with the ring is close range offset shots. Again, that can be mitigated with some practice.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    1,142
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysteryman View Post
    Yes, a very niche role that most won't need or use. It offers a slightly easier/better view under NOD's but not amazing. An Aimpoint or other dot with a proper mount works just as well. The finer centre dot is not a benefit. It's a red dot optic, speed is the goal not precision. Using a magnifier is a bandaid solution to an LPVO. There is no free lunch.
    Sure. HWS are niche items, as I specifically stated, but it's not zero. I would also say that the difference under NODs is quite noticeable, at least with my tubes and some of the lighting conditions and targets I've played with it in, when compared to my CompM5, as there are definitely times where my CompM5's lower light transmission meant that the target was obscured; while I could have attempted the shot using the BAC, I have not found that to be a reliable method for me at range.

    I'd also strongly argue that LPVOs and RDS/HWS with a magnifier fulfill different roles; the LPVO is useful when you're more concerned with having magnification, but still need the ability to shoot at 1x, while the magnifier combo is the opposite. The LPVO cannot be used to aim passively under NODs, and cannot compete with an RDS or HWS when it comes to raw speed when considering use off of the flat range; it's unrealistic to think that folks will be able to practice enough to be able to be just as fast with an LPVO as they are an RDS or HWS when utilizing unorthodox shooting positions while also in full kit. Thus, I do see the finer dot as potentially being a boon when it comes to magnifier use, particularly as magnifiers go to higher and higher powers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mysteryman View Post
    Myself and others disagree. The ring doesn't make you faster, it just permits sloppy shots at short range. The same is achieved with a "good enough" sight picture with a simple dot sight. Either way, with practice and proper mounting of the rifle to the shoulder, the dot is on target regardless of which reticle you use. The one advantage I do see with the ring is close range offset shots. Again, that can be mitigated with some practice.
    An interesting claim I've seen made by someone from EOTech is that one of the reasons the HWS is faster than an RDS is that the hologram is projected in such a way that the eye perceives it as being downrange on the target, and there is not a need to shift the eye's focal distance like it does with an RDS, as the RDS's dot is perceived by the eye to be an object on the lens of the RDS, rather than being downrange on the target. I forget exactly where it's made, but this claim is made somewhere in this podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LBm30ZUkr4. I'm not sure I buy that, as one is not suppose to be focusing on the dot in order to shoot accurately, but I suppose it might help some folks.

    I would never recommend someone an EOTech. Anyone who needs recommendations are probably not in an advanced enough state where they would be able to take advantage of the few advantages of an HWS, while having to deal with all of the disadvantages. I do firmly believe that an RDS is a far superior GP choice, but I also believe that EOTechs have their own niche that no one has been able to unseat them from yet.
    Last edited by Defaultmp3; 09-09-21 at 13:01.
    Plus Áa change, plus c'est la mÍme chose.

    老僧三十年前未參禪時、見山是山、見水是水、及至後夾親見知識、有箇入處、見山不是山、見水不是水、而今得箇體歇處、依然見山秪是山、見水秪是水。

    https://www.instagram.com/defaultmp3/

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Just another filthy undesirable civilian "basement dweller"
    Posts
    5,614
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Eotech also does have a crude range-estimation capability built in, albeit probably not by design--65moa at 100yd is 65", one inch shorter than I am. So a man with toes at bottom of ring and head at top is about 100yd, head at dot about 200, head halfway between dot and ring bottom about 400.

    Yes, average height is a bit taller than that, but if you're using an electronic optic instead of a magnified scope you're probably not exactly playing the Designated Marksman or Scout-Sniper game so it at least should get ballpark "Minute of Badguy."
    You really have to ask why Conservatives have guns? Because Liberals block freeways, burn cities, throw Molotov cocktails, loot, turn over cop cars, and think this behavior is Socially Acceptable.
    --unknown, memed by user "KeepnitReel" at Northwest Firearms
    Joe Biden is not, nor will he EVER be, my President. #SauceForGooseSauceForGander #AllDemsArePedos

    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    7,509
    Feedback Score
    87 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysteryman View Post
    Yes, a very niche role that most won't need or use. It offers a slightly easier/better view under NOD's but not amazing. An Aimpoint or other dot with a proper mount works just as well. The finer centre dot is not a benefit. It's a red dot optic, speed is the goal not precision. Using a magnifier is a bandaid solution to an LPVO. There is no free lunch.

    Those are all opinions of yours, stop stating them as fact.


    Myself and others disagree. The ring doesn't make you faster, it just permits sloppy shots at short range. The same is achieved with a "good enough" sight picture with a simple dot sight. Either way, with practice and proper mounting of the rifle to the shoulder, the dot is on target regardless of which reticle you use. The one advantage I do see with the ring is close range offset shots. Again, that can be mitigated with some practice.
    I'll be sure to let the SFAUC instructors know that they just need to practice more. But in real life, "good enough" matters because there are other considerations detracting from perfect. Good enough is literally good enough.
    Sic semper tyrannis.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    7,509
    Feedback Score
    87 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Defaultmp3 View Post
    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.
    True but IIRC some joker was talking in a military context which is why I threw that in there. I don't care enough to go back and look though.
    Sic semper tyrannis.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Just another filthy undesirable civilian "basement dweller"
    Posts
    5,614
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Trivial aside, it's crude and only "ballpark" but for some reason my brain just connected the dots and noticed that the reticle has a "ballpark rangefinder" capability. Given that 65MOA at 100yd is 5'5" (one inch shorter than I am), that gives us the following...
    *~50yd: crown of head at reticle top, reticle bottom between groin and midthigh
    *~100yd: crown of head at reticle top, reticle bottom near feet
    *~200yd: crown of head at reticle top, dot near feet
    *~400yd: crown of head at reticle top, feet about halfway between dot and reticle top
    Note that these are approximations and not exact, "Minute of Badguy" not precision work like DMR or Scout-Sniper; most of my numbercrunching of late has been Mk18/Commando/12.5" type platforms and CQB applications, where 400yd is an approximate limit for still having any useful terminal ballistics.

    Then again, I'm probably late to the party noticing this...
    You really have to ask why Conservatives have guns? Because Liberals block freeways, burn cities, throw Molotov cocktails, loot, turn over cop cars, and think this behavior is Socially Acceptable.
    --unknown, memed by user "KeepnitReel" at Northwest Firearms
    Joe Biden is not, nor will he EVER be, my President. #SauceForGooseSauceForGander #AllDemsArePedos

    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    332
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
    *~50yd: crown of head at reticle top, reticle bottom between groin and midthigh
    *~100yd: crown of head at reticle top, reticle bottom near feet
    *~200yd: crown of head at reticle top, dot near feet
    *~400yd: crown of head at reticle top, feet about halfway between dot and reticle top
    This illustrates your above points.



    I really don’t understand why there’s this enormous internet debate about HWS vs red dot sights. It’s like the iPhone vs Android debate. There’s only one iPhone and about fifty different manufacturers that make Android phones. Each sight technology has distinct characteristics to suit the user and application.

    Due to power consumption, the HWS is better suited to prepared uses and controlled durations; you know when you’ll use it and have opportunity to prepare your equipment. Advantages are large window for fast acquisition in unconventional positions, projected focal plane and night vision use. Applications like LEO serving warrants, direct action on a structure, hog hunting, range day, etc.

    LED reflex (red dot) sights can be “always on” which is well-suited for less-prepared or unknown duration (years) usage. The smaller “micro” red dots are lighter weight but have smaller windows while the larger ones, with mount, weigh about the same as the HWS. Applications such as long range patrolling, home defense, “grab and go”, etc.

    Reticles are no longer a distinction between HWS and LED reflex sights. You can find both with just a dot or circle-dot, BDC dots, biohazard zombie sign, etc. Another final minor point is the reflex sight focal plane is in the sight, so technically, the dot/reticle and target are never in focus at the same time.
    Last edited by crosseyedshooter; 09-10-21 at 10:11.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    638
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Defaultmp3 View Post
    Sure. HWS are niche items, as I specifically stated, but it's not zero. I would also say that the difference under NODs is quite noticeable, at least with my tubes and some of the lighting conditions and targets I've played with it in, when compared to my CompM5, as there are definitely times where my CompM5's lower light transmission meant that the target was obscured; while I could have attempted the shot using the BAC, I have not found that to be a reliable method for me at range.

    I'd also strongly argue that LPVOs and RDS/HWS with a magnifier fulfill different roles; the LPVO is useful when you're more concerned with having magnification, but still need the ability to shoot at 1x, while the magnifier combo is the opposite. The LPVO cannot be used to aim passively under NODs, and cannot compete with an RDS or HWS when it comes to raw speed when considering use off of the flat range; it's unrealistic to think that folks will be able to practice enough to be able to be just as fast with an LPVO as they are an RDS or HWS when utilizing unorthodox shooting positions while also in full kit. Thus, I do see the finer dot as potentially being a boon when it comes to magnifier use, particularly as magnifiers go to higher and higher powers.

    An interesting claim I've seen made by someone from EOTech is that one of the reasons the HWS is faster than an RDS is that the hologram is projected in such a way that the eye perceives it as being downrange on the target, and there is not a need to shift the eye's focal distance like it does with an RDS, as the RDS's dot is perceived by the eye to be an object on the lens of the RDS, rather than being downrange on the target. I forget exactly where it's made, but this claim is made somewhere in this podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LBm30ZUkr4. I'm not sure I buy that, as one is not suppose to be focusing on the dot in order to shoot accurately, but I suppose it might help some folks.

    I would never recommend someone an EOTech. Anyone who needs recommendations are probably not in an advanced enough state where they would be able to take advantage of the few advantages of an HWS, while having to deal with all of the disadvantages. I do firmly believe that an RDS is a far superior GP choice, but I also believe that EOTechs have their own niche that no one has been able to unseat them from yet.
    I agree that the larger window on the EOTech offers an easier sight picture under NOD's than a classic dot sight. I also agree that with you regarding unconventional positions and LPVO's and obviously their lack of compatibility with NOD's. The claim regarding focal position of the HWS vs a classic dot is BS. Anyone focusing on the dot is doing it wrong. I've never noticed any difference in the sight "picture" between an HWS and a classic dot sight with regards to focal plain and the dot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
    Eotech also does have a crude range-estimation capability built in, albeit probably not by design--65moa at 100yd is 65", one inch shorter than I am. So a man with toes at bottom of ring and head at top is about 100yd, head at dot about 200, head halfway between dot and ring bottom about 400.

    Yes, average height is a bit taller than that, but if you're using an electronic optic instead of a magnified scope you're probably not exactly playing the Designated Marksman or Scout-Sniper game so it at least should get ballpark "Minute of Badguy."
    Range estimation is best done without a reticle. John "shrek" McPhee explains it nicely. I'll summarize it.

    100 yards- Humans have a face, details like eyes and mouth are discernable.
    200 yards- No face
    300 yards- Can't distinguish hands
    400 yards- No head, becomes part of the silhouette
    500 yards- No light between the legs when moving
    600 yards- Humans look like triangles.

    At what distance is a red dot sight effective, and at what distance does a dot sight excel? 100 yards and in is where they excel. At that distance you don't need to measure anything to determine if you can make a hit. With any of the common zeroing methods the AR15 is point and pull to 300.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODgYcy7M6_0

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake27 View Post
    I'll be sure to let the SFAUC instructors know that they just need to practice more. But in real life, "good enough" matters because there are other considerations detracting from perfect. Good enough is literally good enough.
    What dot sight was in use before the EOTech?? Oh yeah, the plain jane Aimpoint red dot sight. Before that? Oh yeah, the OEG by Armson. Has the EOTech resulted in significant increases in hits on target over the Aimpoint? I don't have data on that but I would say the answer is no... A dot sight is a dot sight. The difference is in the performance and quality, both of which EOTech are lacking. They work well under NOD's, but struggle in other areas or at the very least offer nothing better. Seeing how most users of dot sights are NOT using NOD's or financed by big gov, the benefits are moot and the shortcomings are of concern.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
    Trivial aside, it's crude and only "ballpark" but for some reason my brain just connected the dots and noticed that the reticle has a "ballpark rangefinder" capability. Given that 65MOA at 100yd is 5'5" (one inch shorter than I am), that gives us the following...
    *~50yd: crown of head at reticle top, reticle bottom between groin and midthigh
    *~100yd: crown of head at reticle top, reticle bottom near feet
    *~200yd: crown of head at reticle top, dot near feet
    *~400yd: crown of head at reticle top, feet about halfway between dot and reticle top
    Note that these are approximations and not exact, "Minute of Badguy" not precision work like DMR or Scout-Sniper; most of my numbercrunching of late has been Mk18/Commando/12.5" type platforms and CQB applications, where 400yd is an approximate limit for still having any useful terminal ballistics.

    Then again, I'm probably late to the party noticing this...
    Have a look, a much easier method.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODgYcy7M6_0

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    7,509
    Feedback Score
    87 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysteryman View Post
    I agree that the larger window on the EOTech offers an easier sight picture under NOD's than a classic dot sight. I also agree that with you regarding unconventional positions and LPVO's and obviously their lack of compatibility with NOD's. The claim regarding focal position of the HWS vs a classic dot is BS. Anyone focusing on the dot is doing it wrong. I've never noticed any difference in the sight "picture" between an HWS and a classic dot sight with regards to focal plain and the dot.



    Range estimation is best done without a reticle. John "shrek" McPhee explains it nicely. I'll summarize it.

    100 yards- Humans have a face, details like eyes and mouth are discernable.
    200 yards- No face
    300 yards- Can't distinguish hands
    400 yards- No head, becomes part of the silhouette
    500 yards- No light between the legs when moving
    600 yards- Humans look like triangles.

    At what distance is a red dot sight effective, and at what distance does a dot sight excel? 100 yards and in is where they excel. At that distance you don't need to measure anything to determine if you can make a hit. With any of the common zeroing methods the AR15 is point and pull to 300.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODgYcy7M6_0



    What dot sight was in use before the EOTech?? Oh yeah, the plain jane Aimpoint red dot sight. Before that? Oh yeah, the OEG by Armson. Has the EOTech resulted in significant increases in hits on target over the Aimpoint? I don't have data on that but I would say the answer is no... A dot sight is a dot sight. The difference is in the performance and quality, both of which EOTech are lacking. They work well under NOD's, but struggle in other areas or at the very least offer nothing better. Seeing how most users of dot sights are NOT using NOD's or financed by big gov, the benefits are moot and the shortcomings are of concern.



    Have a look, a much easier method.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODgYcy7M6_0
    Weak ass response. Give up.
    Sic semper tyrannis.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6,413
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Defaultmp3 View Post
    They are better suited for use for passive aiming under NODs, due to window size, superior light transmission, and switchology.
    ^^^This is the primary reason for me to get one. My HD carbine wears an Aimpoint, my GP carbine has a LPVO. Different uses, different optics.
    Let's Go Brandon!

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •