Quote History Quoted:
I'm going to give Heineken a full ride on this one because his primary argument is not with the presence of a defect but in EOTech's abject failure to resolve his problem even though he specifically articulated the problem to them. Plus, seriously, any manufacturer that builds NV compatible gear that does not keep NV on-hand for testing purposes is playing bush league - but they are charging major league prices for admission.
I'm not upset about this whole thing because I'm on the Aimpoint bandwagon - I'm upset about it because I'm on the EOTech bandwagon. When they are working right they outperform the Aimpoints when used ICW NV.
Using a design defect to try to excuse a manufacturing defect is reprehensible customer relations.
Switch gears: What are the numbers of each of the types defects versus the numbers of units fielded? I've heard a lot of complaining from individual users but I have not seen solid numbers. Is EOTech keeping that information a secret? If so, that's another ding. The settlement does not excuse that ethically, only legally. I am seriously intrigued to know if the number is significant enough to warrant fearing for unit failure. Maybe this is mostly smoke, but without numbers I can't tell.
View Quote
I don't mind him posting the thread, though I think it'd be more appropriate for the Optics subforum, though it may also be posted there, I haven't been over there in a while, it moves too fast for me to keep up with.
My comment had more to do with the ironic snide reference to those who continue to use EOTechs being "emotional"--in response to an emotion-laced rant/celebration which could be summed up as "nyah nyah, woo-hoo, fuck EOTech."
As far as the "numbers" go, for all intents and purposes
ALL EOTechs will experience some thermal drift--as will all electronic dot sights. I am unsure off top of my head are considered to be "non-repeating," that is to say, they won't return to center after experiencing thermal drift. No EOTechs are 100% parallax free, either, again, something shared between all RDS. Finally, it appears that upwards of 90% of EOTechs will not maintain a full seal and lose some nitrogen over time, sometimes getting severe enough that the optic will lose considerable brightness, even at the highest setting. EOTech claims to have fixed the drift repeatability and seals, though many are understandably skeptical, while some thermal drift and parallax are something that cannot really be fixed, and all RDS experience.
If you understand and accept that, then so be it, I do--but I re-zero my sights regularly, have enough other optics that I can afford to send one in for service, and have been successfully using them for over ten years, and I do still feel that the EOTech offers me some capabilities--many of them NV related that I have detailed elsewhere, that no other optic can offer me at the present time. I have no statement in defense of the company's ethics in the matter, though I do believe that there's more to the story that's not being made public. However, beyond that, I invite anyone to try to remove all contact from L3 from their lives, most of y'all will need to turn in your NODs (I will accept filthy L3 devices and dispose of them free of charge, and can provide pre-paid shipping labels), and fun never going to an airport again.
Meanwhile, in other news, another trainer whom I respect (Eric Dorenbush, Green Eye Tactical), at least, and has a great deal of experience has recently banned Aimpoint T1s from his carbine classes, citing irreparable parallax issues. I post this not to say "see, Aimpoints have problems too," but to show that there is, was, and will always be a wide range of opinions, often coming from respected sources. There's a lot of people whose opinions I respect, but in the end, my opinions, experiences, and decisions are my own, and just because I respect Eric's opinions doesn't mean that I'm going to rush out and dump the Aimpoint T1 either, if it works for my purposes and applications, I simply absorb all the information possible, and decide from there.
Aimpoint T 1 Ban
(for those who want to read more, as it's fairly long)
I do not make this decision lightly. I am not endorsed by any optics company, nor am I a product ambassador for any company. The Aimpoint T-1 did not exist when I was in Army Special Operations, so my first experience with them was as an instructor when they first started showing up in my courses over 3 years ago. The very first exposure I had to them was in the first Tactical Rifle course I taught. During the Tac Rifle course (which many think is more similar to precision rifle training, but I just call it fundamentals) I had a couple guys bring them. These students were excellent shooters and were easily laying sub-MOA groups at their zero distance, which was close to 50yds. During this training we will fire a 5-10 round group, focusing on fundamentals, then go downrange and analyze the group for possible fundamental errors, and then go back and fire another group throughout the day. However, when these shooters would fire consecutive groups, they would produce a significant Point of Impact (POI) shift. This shift was anywhere between ¼” and 2”. My immediate concern, of course, was to check the sight mount for loose mounts, barrel and muzzle treatment tightness, carbon buildup in the muzzle crown, ammo lot consistency, and a number of other factors. None of those possible errors were evident. After this issue persisted, I got down behind their rifle and sighted it towards a target. I immediately noticed that when positioning my head, the aiming dot moved. So, I grabbed a rifle vise, aimed it at the target and got completely behind the buttstock. I then carefully moved my head vertically up and down. The first student’s T-1 dot moved in a “C” that was significant enough at 50yds for the dot to leave the NRA 25yd bullseye at its apogee. I then checked the second student’s T-1 and his moved in a “U” pattern. Since then I have had many T-1’s turn up at courses. EVERY ONE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM. Referencing the aiming dot to the front sight post mitigated the POI shift to some extent, but it never eliminated it. This inconsistency makes precisely zeroing the T-1 and troubleshooting other fundamental errors very difficult. In most situations, I prefer students to see the problem themselves and arrive at my conclusions without just having them take my word for it. However, I feel at this point that students coming to my Rifle Fundamentals course with a T-1 means that they are not getting the full value of the training they are paying for. I know that many in the industry are emotionally attached to all things Aimpoint and will vehemently deny that this problem exists. Interestingly, this non-existent problem was fixed with the T-2, which does not have this issue. I think that many of these people deny the issue because they never do precision grouping work with their T-1 out to the distances we do in the Tac Rifle Fundamentals course. And before you say “red dots aren’t for precision grouping”, the T-2 (and other Aimponts), EoTech, MRO, and other optics have no issues with this process. So, sorry if this triggers you (not really)- but, it is what it is. Bring your T-1 to any other course you want (you’ll hate it at the Night Vision Operator course as well- but I’ll allow it there), but not the Tactical Rifle Fundamentals course. I highly recommend dumping the T-1 if you have one, and getting a T-2 if you are an Aimpoint fan. Maybe sell the T-1 to someone who thinks it is the greatest optic ever.
Regardless, this will be my last post in this thread on any topic to avoid the types of pissing matches that inevitably occur when these types of topics come up, and let this one run its course without me, elaboration or discussion on anything else can be done in another thread or venue.
~Augee