Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 60 of 60

Thread: Eotech 553

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    155
    Feedback Score
    0
    KevinB, if it ever becomes possible to get "the other" levers for the 553, I'll finance the change from the garbage "soft mount" to LaRue for you
    Save the Pandas!

    -Tally Fortenberry
    -Capco Small Arms Research Group

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    MI, USA
    Posts
    14
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jmart
    How do you deal with different rail dimensions without going to a tension-adjustable lever like LaRue's? What spec would have not been met if you used LaRue's?
    If your rail meets Mil-Spec, there should not be an issue. To my knowledge, all of the rails shipped to the U.S. Military should be within specified tolerances, otherwise they would have been rejected during inspections. The 553 was designed for the U.S. Military. They are the paying customer. We designed what they asked for. All I can say is, "If it don't work, they're gonna make us fix it or they ain't gonna buy it."

    I'm not sure whether or not the LaRue would have met spec. I am not an engineer and was not involved in the design of the 553 or in the discussions with Crane. I do believe the LaRue would have had to protrude out further so the nut can be adjusted. The ARMS levers provides a slimmer profile and tuck nicely under the hood where they cannot be snagged on webgear- if that matters at all.

    The LaRue's are nice mounts. I use the LaRue base for the EOTech on one of my rifles. It's a good piece of kit, but I also have ARMS mounts on some of my rifles and I haven't encountered any problems with them. Of course, I'm not in the military. I'm just a lowly sales guy.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,631
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SuicideHz
    C4i- I thought from reading Manx's last post that the levers were just levers. I then inferred that Eotech was designing the clamping system. Therefore I'd think they might work much better than a 100%-ARMS clamping system.

    But, you handled the 553 and said this is not the case. Perhaps that is exactly what is being worked out at the moment- How to use the ARMS levers and come up with a better clamping system and use the levers as simple levers.

    The model I handled was a Shot. Let me fire off an e-mail and see if they changed something.


    C4

  4. #54
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,631
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Manx
    If your rail meets Mil-Spec, there should not be an issue. To my knowledge, all of the rails shipped to the U.S. Military should be within specified tolerances, otherwise they would have been rejected during inspections. The 553 was designed for the U.S. Military. They are the paying customer. We designed what they asked for. All I can say is, "If it don't work, they're gonna make us fix it or they ain't gonna buy it."

    I'm not sure whether or not the LaRue would have met spec. I am not an engineer and was not involved in the design of the 553 or in the discussions with Crane. I do believe the LaRue would have had to protrude out further so the nut can be adjusted. The ARMS levers provides a slimmer profile and tuck nicely under the hood where they cannot be snagged on webgear- if that matters at all.

    The LaRue's are nice mounts. I use the LaRue base for the EOTech on one of my rifles. It's a good piece of kit, but I also have ARMS mounts on some of my rifles and I haven't encountered any problems with them. Of course, I'm not in the military. I'm just a lowly sales guy.
    The Picatinny spec has variances in it.

    Don't knock sales guys (as I am one).


    C4



  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    WY
    Posts
    887
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant
    Receiver rail specs vary. ARMS levers do not adjust. This is pretty much it in a nut shell. ARMS Lever might start out tight on a rail, but will wear out over time (or break). I am afraid that the ARMS levers will end up making the 553 look bad and people will think it is EOTech's fault and hold them accountable.


    C4
    The optic itself is good stuff, but if you know there is a weak link it should be addressed beforehand rather than "Microsofting" it and shipping out bad goods and assuming a fix will come along.

    Please L3, redesign the mount without those levers!

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    155
    Feedback Score
    0
    In a perfect world, non-adjusting throwlevers would be ideal. Unfortunately, there is that +/- .002 on the rail spec which makes certain mounts very selective to whether or not they'll fit too tight, just right, or sloppy ass loose. Tack on that the mounts in question have their own tolerances which seem to vary, and you have a recipe for disaster.

    Best case scenario:

    EOTech made the clamp opposite of the lever adjustable, and did away with the "soft mount" pad that these particular mounts usually use. Then, the only real negative is that you're using a MIM throwlever.
    Save the Pandas!

    -Tally Fortenberry
    -Capco Small Arms Research Group

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NoVa
    Posts
    2,906
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Damn - I guess I mis-read the intitial - I thought it was going to be able to adapt to Larue levers.

    Well I like my 552 on a Larue -- the only real advantage for the 553 to me was the C123's...
    My 551's shit the bed in the cold so I dont go that route even for the smaller platfrom.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL.
    Posts
    2,395
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinB
    Damn - I guess I mis-read the intitial - I thought it was going to be able to adapt to Larue levers.

    Well I like my 552 on a Larue -- the only real advantage for the 553 to me was the C123's...
    My 551's shit the bed in the cold so I dont go that route even for the smaller platfrom.
    If some of the real-deal folks like yourself, pass the word on to L3/Eotech that a 553 WITHOUT the ARMS mount and WITHOUT the additional height is what would be preferred, so it can be mounted on a LaRue mount, perhaps they will listen and build it.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NoVa
    Posts
    2,906
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I'm done -- I'm a money grubbing contractor now -- no one listens to us...

  10. #60
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,631
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by nickdrak
    If some of the real-deal folks like yourself, pass the word on to L3/Eotech that a 553 WITHOUT the ARMS mount and WITHOUT the additional height is what would be preferred, so it can be mounted on a LaRue mount, perhaps they will listen and build it.

    As I said in my earlier post, I offered to buy HUNDREDS of them and have not gotten anywhere. The main reason is that they are too busy to make anything other than what they have on their plate at the moment.


    C4

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

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
  •