Originally Posted By Augee:
Typed this out for another thread, and figured I may as well re-post it here for others who may be interested:
To recap - I own an EOTech 552.A65 Rev. F, and two EOTech 553.A65TAN SU-231/PEQs. The 552 has been owned since 2007, and while I have had one 553 since 2010, and another since 2011. The 552 I bought used from after having been used previously in Iraq (it was a great deal!
), and one of the 553s was used in Afghanistan.
EOTechs tend to be a polarizing issue on many "gun" forums, and I have little interest in getting into an EOTech versus Aimpoint debate, however, I must interject:
To imply that US SOF is somehow saddled with the EOTech against their will "because that's what the government bought them" is patently false. Evidence to this effect has not only been tendered by recent and operational members of those communities, but also the fact that while the Aimpoint was standard issue, many end-users elected to personally purchase their own EOTechs and even Bushnell Holosights, while many units chose to purchase them using unit funds, the direct consequence being the eventual adoption of EOTechs over Aimpoints as the "official" USSOCOM issue optic. Furthermore, particularly with regards to USASOC - the Aimpoint CompM4 and M4S already exist in huge numbers within the Army supply system as the M68CCO, and it would be less than overwhelming for USASOC to arrange to be equipped with reflex sights under their "home" component and use Aimpoints if they so desired.
In addition, the implication that US SOF simply tears through EOTechs without concern for longevity "because they can just buy new ones," as if they're running one operation, then trading their optic in for a NIB unit is also not supported by any evidence. In fact, the EOTech 551.A65, a model that has been discontinued for several years, the "tragically flawed N-cell EOTech" is still in relatively wide service with some of the best equipped units within the establishment - the kind that can afford $40,000 NVDs. If EOTech service life were in fact so atrociously short - the discontinued 551 should have faded from service long ago, as should the 552s, also quite common.
The idea of using an EOTech without iron sights of any kind is not an unusual one. It's just... not. By people who have a much more realistic expectation of needing to use an optic equipped weapon in their own self defense, or even in offensive operations than the vast majority of people here. If the EOTech were so unreliable to the point of continually needing BUIS, the leaders in the various organizations that use EOTechs would be cracking heads and bringing down unholy hell on anyone caught without BUIS. Particularly in small unit tactics - if there was so much risk associated with the use of EOTechs - it would be an unacceptable risk to allow even one person to go into action without BUIS, as it would endanger the entire unit if even one weapon became NMC (non-mission capable - unable to be accurately aimed). Nor would their peers allow this either.
They do, however, get free, and nearly unlimited batteries.
I have my own personal experiences as well to draw upon, some of which is organizational, in favor of the use of the EOTech.
I have personally owned four Aimpoints and three EOTechs in my life. I currently do not own a single Aimpoint, and fully intend to purchase more EOTechs when it becomes realistic for me to do so. I have used, and had come through my responsibility literally hundreds of Aimpoints, but still prefer the EOTech.
A couple other comments:
- I'm not an electrical engineer, so I can't comment on why this is so - but EOTechs, from what I can tell - don't like being neglected. They don't like being left alone for weeks or months at a time, only to be turned on at intervals. Almost every EOTech problem that I have heard of has involved an EOTech that was in some form of storage for significant periods of its service life, rather than being in continual use.
- For whatever reason the above is true - it may be that EOTechs, by a combination of battery life, for reasons already mentioned (laser pattern emitter versus LED diode) and aversion to neglect - they may not be the best option for a casual civilian shooter with a day job for home defense, or even an LEO who stores their weapon in a rack 99% of the time, only to deploy during emergencies and/or the occasional warrant service or SWAT "op."
As with any other equipment choices - you need to understand what you're getting, its advantages and limitations, and above all, be realistic about your needs and ability to maximize the advantages while mitigating the disadvantages.
Regardless of personal ego and conceits - it is a simple fact that the needs of a service member that is forward deployed do not always correspond with the needs of an armed citizen or LEO. You need to choose your equipment based on your actual mission profile, whether its home defense or civil order or kinetic or full-spectrum military operations, and understand what it is that you are training for, if at all. Some people just want to look cool and plink at the range.