Eotech

[Former11B]

I have had issues with Eotechs losing zero between outings. I do not own them anymore

[Default.mp3]

I like these options, however, I find myself missing the reticle of the Eotech sights. I have terrible astigmatism in my dominant eye, and for some reason the 1 MOA circle dot reticle does not distort like a single dot does.

What other sights have you tried? My Aimpoint T-1 looks pretty garbage through my eyes (though it is perfectly usable), while my T-2 has a much cleaner dot, as do my RMRs; I use corrective lenses, and have to correct for astigmatism in my left eye. While I did not care for the MRO I looked through at the LGS, the dot seemed to be quite well-defined for me.

It's not misleading because not all RDS have the same level of issues. Eotechs had some measurably significant shift. Aimpoints also had a measurably significant shift. MROs (which, for the record, I do not own and don't really care to own) had measurably less shift (but as you have pointed out, still had some shift).

Proof of Aimpoint's measurably significant shift? I'm not saying Aimpoints don't exhibit thermal shift, but I am curious as to your source to make you state the shift is significant. The only testing I've seen was some dude's backyard test, which while better than nothing, is not statistically significant, being a sample of one, on a single model, IIRC.

I'll also note that there have been many critics of EOTech's HWS through the years, even before the thermal shift issue came to light, due to EOTech's perceived shortcomings when it came to reliability and durability. I'll also note that battery life is something to be considered, at least for a home defense weapon.

[fledge]

I'm surprised to see such a range of eotech problems from a small sampling of users. I sent mine back (XPS) during the recall/refund though it didn't give me problems. I've read hours of posts on this and didn't see such a variety of problems.

I'll delete my comment above since it would be misleading for future readers based on the rest of this thread.

[SINNER]

It's not misleading because not all RDS have the same level of issues. Eotechs had some measurably significant shift. Aimpoints also had a measurably significant shift. MROs (which, for the record, I do not own and don't really care to own) had measurably less shift (but as you have pointed out, still had some shift).

I agree, Eotech didn't openly admit the gravity of the shift. But guess what, neither has Aimpoint (and again, FTR, I tend to use Aimpoints, so I'm not picking on them specifically). Meanwhile Trijicon came out and openly admitted there would be some shift on their MRO.

At the end of the day, though, only the end user can determine how much this matters. Based on what I've seen, it matters less than what the average shooter can manage 100y and in.



Because you're not fully understanding how .mil requirements work. Eotech met the requirements as tested. Were there flaws? Yep! But they weren't brought out until later. Now the requirement/contract has been modded (ie, now there's acknowledgment of a shift) and it's back to business. Right or wrong, this isn't abnormal within the enterprise. Annoying from the operator's standpoint? Absolutely, but not unheard of.

You are missing the point of where Eotech went wrong. They themselves are the ones who claimed their optic exhibited no thermal shift. It was a proven in court to be a lie that they knew about yet made no attempts to resolve it other than dropping their claim from the consumer literature.

Aimpoint has never made any such claims regarding thermal shift of their optics. Nor do they need to because anyone with minimal knowledge of thermal expansion coefficient knows that is an impossible claim to make.

Have you tried the Trijicon TA44, similar reticle with etched glass so it doesn't get distorted from astigmatism
I have a severe astigmatism and these are crisp. I prefer the red reticle, plus no batteries/electronics to fail

One of my favorite optics. I bought both of mine lightly used for under $700. One that I've personally had for 9 years is at Trijicon now getting a new trillium pill. For some reason I find I'm more accurate and faster with those than a zero magnification red dot.

[Former11B]

One of my favorite optics. I bought both of mine lightly used for under $700. One that I've personally had for 9 years is at Trijicon now getting a new trillium pill. For some reason I find I'm more accurate and faster with those than a zero magnification red dot.

Not to be too off topic here, because I love my TA11 ACOG but would ultimately like one that's smaller.

What is the cost from Trijicon to replace the tritium inside the optic and how long did yours last?

[Joelski]

You are missing the point of where Eotech went wrong. They themselves are the ones who claimed their optic exhibited no thermal shift. It was a proven in court to be a lie that they knew about yet made no attempts to resolve it other than dropping their claim from the consumer literature.

Aimpoint has never made any such claims regarding thermal shift of their optics. Nor do they need to because anyone with minimal knowledge of thermal expansion coefficient knows that is an impossible claim to make.



One of my favorite optics. I bought both of mine lightly used for under $700. One that I've personally had for 9 years is at Trijicon now getting a new trillium pill. For some reason I find I'm more accurate and faster with those than a zero magnification red dot.

What's the freight on replacement Tritium, if you don't mind my asking? My heartburn with ACOG's is the shelf life of the tritium. Costing one out over ten years and weighting it for ease of use and enjoyment seems to be an expensive rental program. I've heard that it's almost as costly to replace the tritium element as to just toss it and buy a new one. Is the world making a mountain out of a molehill, or should I just cast it to the wind and get it and be happy?

As far as EOTECH is concerned, I don't own one, never have but I think the penance of everybody scooping up their original purchase price for a problem they never experienced is a little heavy handed and if its indeed fixed, they should be allowed back in the game. L3 lost money that would choke most businesses out. I refuse to believe anybody short of a cop storing a rifle in his cruiser in SOCAL/Death Valley ever came close to experiencing this. Delams may be a different story, but if they sucked that bad, they'd have a rep like any other shitty glass maker and they just don't.

[gatordev]

Proof of Aimpoint's measurably significant shift? I'm not saying Aimpoints don't exhibit thermal shift, but I am curious as to your source to make you state the shift is significant. The only testing I've seen was some dude's backyard test, which while better than nothing, is not statistically significant, being a sample of one, on a single model, IIRC.

Very true. But it was a pretty disciplined test that confirmed that Eotech's stuff shifted (which helps everyone on the bandwagon) but also showed similar issues with AP. And didn't AP go after them, which resulted in the takedown of the video? The data is still available via Google (again, I get it is what it is), but I thought that's part of why they took the actual video down.

I'll also note that there have been many critics of EOTech's HWS through the years, even before the thermal shift issue came to light, due to EOTech's perceived shortcomings when it came to reliability and durability. I'll also note that battery life is something to be considered, at least for a home defense weapon.

Again, very true. And let me be clear, I'm not an Eotech fan boy. I own two; one that's on a rifle that I don't really care about shift and the other that used to be on a clone (the optic is now sitting in the safe). For me, the AP wins on so many other fronts that I keep staying with it.

You are missing the point of where Eotech went wrong. They themselves are the ones who claimed their optic exhibited no thermal shift. It was a proven in court to be a lie that they knew about yet made no attempts to resolve it other than dropping their claim from the consumer literature.

That wasn't the point of your initial post though. You questioned why .mil/LE is issued these things. Again, the reason is because they had a spec to meet and they won the contract. It was later discovered that they didn't meet the spec, so the spec was adjusted and they're still issued (as far as I know). This isn't an uncommon thing in the military. Does it make me happy? Of course not, but that's what happens.

Personally, I don't have a need for another Eotech for many reasons, but what you or I have a need for isn't relevant to how the contracting world works.

[SINNER]

Not to be too off topic here, because I love my TA11 ACOG but would ultimately like one that's smaller.

What is the cost from Trijicon to replace the tritium inside the optic and how long did yours last?

You have to send it in for a quote. I've sent 3 in before and 2 were repaired free of charge and 1 was around $500 because I had the reticle changed also.

That wasn't the point of your initial post though. You questioned why .mil/LE is issued these things. Again, the reason is because they had a spec to meet and they won the contract. It was later discovered that they didn't meet the spec, so the spec was adjusted and they're still issued (as far as I know). This isn't an uncommon thing in the military. Does it make me happy? Of course not, but that's what happens.

Personally, I don't have a need for another Eotech for many reasons, but what you or I have a need for isn't relevant to how the contracting world works.

That statement is misleading. ALL optics exhibit thermal shift. Materials expand and contract based on temps. The problem was Eotech claiming theirs DID NOT exhibit thermal shift.

It was literally the first sentence in my post.

And I don't know much about military contracting but I would consider most of their weapon and optic choices very solid.

Eotech has never shown me they deserved the implications of military durability they portrayed.

[Default.mp3]

And I don't know much about military contracting but I would consider most of their weapon and optic choices very solid.

The military? The same folks that decided the SERPA should be a standard issue holster? The same folks that decided to issue a second focal plane optic for a sniper rifle (Nightforce NXS 5.5-22x56)? The same folks that created the abortion known as the M26 MASS? That adopted UCP over Multicam, went to war, and then changed their minds only after the war wound down? The military gets some solid gear... but they also get some decided really shitty gear, too.

[gatordev]

I was referring to this comment.

I always wondered how they could issue such crap to our armed forces and LEO's.

Eotech has never shown me they deserved the implications of military durability they portrayed.

We have lots of gear that breaks regularly that have been built to spec. Durability isn't always the end result, even if it was supposed to be in the spec. Obviously that's certainly not a good reason for a civilian to buy it.

[Joelski]

The phenomenon of the internet blowing things out of proportion is solidly in play here. I am positive that for some, the issues noted have a potential to impact life safety; the rest stand firmly on the same reason for what amounts to range optics. I am equally positive there's a ton of guys that used the 65 MOA circle that would kill to have their EOTECHs back over any other close range sight on the market. It's niche is CQB, not MOA. I'm hoping to add an EXPS 3.2 after the tinsel is all cleaned up.

I am sorely bitter I didn't get to try out a HWS for years and years for free, so don't be butthurt by my comments.