Eotech 553

[VA_Dinger]

I've been touching base with them every few weeks since SHOT and the order placed then. Unfortunately it looks like the 553 is indefinitely delayed, at least that was the info I got the last time I talked to them.

Of course I've read rumors everywhere...about color, availability, and such. What I've been told from Eotech is Coyote only at this time, no LaRue mounts, the ARMS mounts were govt. spec.

A CR123 512 or 552, (maybe the 514 and 554? ) would be great and hopefully that is down the road, simply for battery commonality across platforms.

J

What reason was given for the delay/cancellation of the 553 program?

I would be very interested in a CR123 powered 552. It makes more sense, at least for my needs. It would give more options because I can choose to use a riser mount (LaRue Eotech mount) or not. Some weapons do not need the extra height and with the 553 you are stuck with it.

[JTAC_Supply]

I probably shouldn't have said indefinite, the program hasn't been shelved, but I was only told "A problem with the base and it's going back into design". I asked about ETA and was told "We're now saying sometime this year"
I think that once everything is said and done, it will be a good sight but it is going to be longer to get them out.

I also asked about service issues with the ARMS mounts, but Eotech said at SHOT that once they are shipped, any issues with the ARMS mount is ARMS responsibility. A Larue mount would have been nice, but if it's not compatible it's not compatible, and of course isn't what SOCOM speced. Something along the lines of the GG&G Accucam would be great, but of course that doesn't add the height that SOCOM wanted.

J

[CapnCrunch]

Who's a good person to talk to at EOTech/L3 about this particular optic?

[DFinnegan]

You can question me on it. The program is not suspended at all or scrapped by any stretch of the imagination. There were some minor redesigns that were done and they resulted in pushing our production time back. It will certainly be out this year, but we are looking at an August timeframe right now (this is, of course, subject to change).

[USMC]

I've got a few questions. 1. Why have the permanent riser and not at least have an option without it? I as well as many others much prefer the true/absolute co-witness over the lower 1/3 co-witness. 2. Why wasn't the standard color black? I really like the CR123 batteries but I just can't justify the price of the 553 compared to the 551 or 552. 3. I'm guessing that the arms mount is where the difference in cost is at?

[VA_Dinger]

I've got a few questions. 1. Why have the permanent riser and not at least have an option without it? I as well as many others much prefer the true/absolute co-witness over the lower 1/3 co-witness. 2. Why wasn't the standard color black? I really like the CR123 batteries but I just can't justify the price of the 553 compared to the 551 or 552. 3. I'm guessing that the arms mount is where the difference in cost is at?

I'm sure almost everyone of these points was specified by SOCOM.

[CapnCrunch]

You can question me on it. The program is not suspended at all or scrapped by any stretch of the imagination. There were some minor redesigns that were done and they resulted in pushing our production time back. It will certainly be out this year, but we are looking at an August timeframe right now (this is, of course, subject to change).

Dennis, I'll give you guys a call Monday. Thanks!

[Cold Zero]

dennis, welcome to the site. good to have you.

guys, i had a previous dealing with dennis and he provides outstanding customer service. a pleasure to deal with.

[Manx]

I've got a few questions. 1. Why have the permanent riser and not at least have an option without it? I as well as many others much prefer the true/absolute co-witness over the lower 1/3 co-witness. 2. Why wasn't the standard color black? I really like the CR123 batteries but I just can't justify the price of the 553 compared to the 551 or 552. 3. I'm guessing that the arms mount is where the difference in cost is at?

While Dennis is the official voice of L3-EOTech, I don't mind helping him out sometimes. To answer your questions above: All the differences between the 552 and 553 were changes that were requested by USSOCOM for the contract award. Nothing was changed that wasn't required by Crane. This includes: The 7mm increase in height, the Flat Dark Earth Color, the CR123 battery type, the battery cap tether, the 20-meter waterproofing, and the ARMS levers.

The increase in height was specified at 7mm so it would be the same height and give the same cheek-weld as other optics that might be mounted on the same weapon (Trijicon ACOG or Thermal Weapon Sight, etc.). The reason for the ARMS levers is for the ability to change optics quickly without tools - so the SF operator can tailor the optic to the mission and they can go to a thermal scope at night or a magnified optic if necessary. It makes sense when you think about it.

The ARMS levers are part of the additional cost, but is not the only factor. The additional testing required for 20-meter submersibility certification is another. The stainless steel windage and elevation screws also cost more. The battery cap tether, the additional cost of the FDE anodizing, etc. etc.

The 553 was created to specs issued by Crane, period. Commercial marketing was expected to follow, but was not the driver behind the new product.

[USMC]

Thanks for the clarification!