I loved my eotech till it died...my aimpoint t-1 has yet to fail. That being said i will give the newer eotechs a shot. IMO the eotech is a better cqb optic while the aimpoint is a more robust and a better long term optic. If i could only have one id choose aimpoint. I have the luxury of having both so I will be grabbing an eotech in the next couple months.

I have had two Aimpoint micros fail. I also had an older Eotech 512 fail.

To add some details on the Aimpoint failures. Both were T1s purchased new. One fogged up and the other lost zero and the windage/elevation dials stopped working. Both were safe queens with little use.

All of my new logo EXPS/XPS and T2/Comp M5 have been solid.

Harv has given you the answer.  I wouldn't use an Eotech again if you gave it to me.  They are unreliable toys.

Don't base your choice on what the military uses.  My son is a USMC officer.  The VAST majority of military are not gun or optics people.  They take what they are given.  They often know less than the average gun store clerk at Turners (horror!).

It’s interesting how split people are on Eotech. I love my Eotechs and have no reason to not trust them. Same goes for most of the people I know that use them for real work. Meh .... I love and trust both my Aimpoints and Eotechs.

...is this your first account here? You seem familiar.

What does their level of knowledge on optics have to do with anything? They don't have to have a vast knowledge base to know if something works or it doesn't.

If they were unreliable toys then SOCOM wouldn't use them. They're not the same as a line company or some random officer in the USMC.


You do seem familiar. Something about going to see your son and Marines had weapons for display. You were asking random questions they didn't know the answers to.

Edit You're also confusing regular line Marines or Soldiers who are limited to what they have access too. Which is mostly ACOGs, Aimpoints, and a small amount have Elcan SpectrDR.

Compared to SOCOM guys who have access to Eotechs, Aimpoints, Elcans, Acogs, or what ever unit purchase they want to make. They can also use their own optics which is how you see a lot of personal bought LVPOs on their guns.

But Bro.... his son is a freeking USMC Officer....

Attached File

hunter2052 (Banned by Aimless)

"My son is a USMC Officer.  When I went to family day, I eagerly went to the weapons display exhibit.  It was staffed by a variety of officers.  Over a period of 30-45 minutes I walked from station to station looking and asking questions.  THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT THEIR GEAR.  A very small sample of the things they didn't know... "

LINK

Wait wait wait. You mean to tell me that his son, his offspring, is a freaking USMC Officer AND he himself has a damn blackbelt? Omfg. Is he really Chuck Norris? Someone unmask him. Please... tell me Chuck Norris is in this thread.

FYI - if you tout your child’s military standing and your fucking blackbelt on the internet, you’re probably much less credible than you think.

Love this place.

Eotech vs Aimpoint

Attached File

"Shotokan Karate"

Actually that is NOT completely accurate.

The Aimpoint is the King of red dot optics.  But the EOTech is a holographic optic & they are slightly different from red dots in function & features.  And among holographic optics, the EOTech is the current champ.

I disagree. The Vortex is better, cheaper better battery life, ability to disable auto shutoff and now NV capable with the gen 2 coming in July.

(yawn!)

AIMPOINT

(yawn!)

I disagree. As has been proven many time when guys actually train, speed(performance) depends on you and how much you train. Not on the reticle.

That’s because some of us actually do research, read, and take into account real world experiences. And no, fanboys citing how many cool guys use them is not a factual cite or sound reasoning.

The fuckin things break. And not normal break like anything can. They break just sitting around.

Read the court documents. They are fundamentally design flawed. Admitted by Eojunk themselves. Go look at the threads asking people if their EOtechs had issues.

And keep in mind this is coming from someone who had EOtechs and has a brand new xps-3 getting delivered next week to test out.

I’ve heard the units with the new logo are better. We will see.  I’ll run it through some of the more customized hard use tests That have proven deadly to many an eotech in the past like....sitting in the safe, and riding in a padded case to the range to be sighted in.......  all devastating real world scenarios that separate the men optics from the boy optics.

Hopefully the enginerds at Eotech have gotten their internals off the short bus....

Or when they can replace them at no cost. And let’s not forget that just because they are too guys doesn’t mean they aren’t stubborn humans that know better but don’t want to give something up because of a certain reason or another. Let’s be fair. There is a good reason a ton of unit from every level of government and in the military as well dumped eotech in favor of Aimpoint and even other sights.

And eotech does have a great reticle. What does that tell you?

Denial isn’t a different opinion. Stubbornness isn’t an opinion. We are trying to educate with facts so those two things go away in regards to eotech.

Again, I hope they have fixed the issues. I don’t want to have to worry about the new one I just bought.

But they are worthy of our scorn until they prove otherwise.

I always dismiss those who make the "better field of view" claim as someone who does not really understand and know how a reflex type sight works...
If used correctly (Like the BAC on an ACOG) the one eyes sees the reticle and the other sees the target, the brain puts the to together and viola...

The shape of the housing becomes irrelevant... it could be a square, a circle or a triangle for that matter.

The key to proper use is to look thru the red dot and onto the target. Too many fixate on the reticle and then complain because it's not "Crisp or round" For the purpose of what the sight is and what it's for, it makes no difference. But then again people bitch about the finish on a Colt, like it's  $4k Over /under custom shot gun with walnut stocks.

The reticle is just a reference point. A place holder on where you would like the bullet to go. And since speed is the hallmark of the design, the shape of the reticle makes little difference as you are putting a quick flash picture of the reticle on the spot you want the bullet to go. So your never really spending a lot of time focusing on the reticle and how crisp, clear it is. Over the yeas, my dots have all been a shape other then a perfect circle. Usually a comma or an oblong circle. When I'm going for distance or when zeroing, I turn the illumination intensity down so that it goes back to a teeny/tiny dot.

But if folks what to claim they have better field of view, go right ahead, you're wrong, but feels and all....


The one thing I'll give the circle/dot reticle designs, is that the bottom of the circle gives you a nice aiming point for your offset at the 15-10 yd and closer CQB range.

But knowing your offset with a dot was never super complicated if you practiced.

Wrong. The uh1 holds that title, and the new v2 will further cement its position.

Yup, agreed.

The only time I’ll agree where the eotech excels is passive aiming with NV.

I’ve got Holosun 510c’s but I’ve been told the men’s coatings they use rob a decent amount of light where as the EOtechs don’t. We will see, my new eotech should be in the mailbox this week.

The benefit to a larger viewing window is having more wiggle room for incorrect head alignment when firing from odd positions. This is especially true when paired with holographic sights inherently great lack of parallax characteristics.

You draw a distinction without a difference - the user looks thru the sight and sees a red dot for the aiming point.

Accurate. FOV doesn’t matter because of how much area around the target you can see, it matters because of how much eye misalignment is allowable while still being able to see the reticle. And yeah, the low parallax inherent to holographic optics compliments that. They excel in unconventional shooting positions, NVG use, etc.

I think it is testament to the power of good marketing that in a marketplace full of very capable products it is always Aimpoint vs EOTech.

EOTech had their set of issues.  Now that they essentially had a private equity backed management buyout, I am very curious to see where they go.

Personally, since I do not use NVGs a whole lot, my preferred holographic sight is Vortex UH-1, but I will certainly be testing the new version some time this summer.  While I do not have anything against EOTech, UH-1 has notably longer battery life which makes a significant difference to me.  It has also been absolutely bullet proof.

With red dot sights, I am somewhat leery of paying Aimpoint prices unless there something else there that justifies it.  Conventional red dot sights are very simple devices to build and I have some reservations about paying that much for the name.  That having been said Aimpoint makes very nice red dot sights.  I have slight astigmatism, so the dot on Aimpoimt Micros does not look all that round to me.  Larger Aimpoints look better, but if I am going for something fairly big, I want it to have other features, so on my home defense gun I went with Meprolight MOR.  My primary motivation for that is that it has LED, fiber and tritium illumination in addition to a built in laser.  With all that, the dot is also perfectly round to my eye.

There are other good quality full size red dots sights out there that have very good collimation quality, with Steiner DRS1x probably being the latest.  I have not tested it, but I have seen a prototype and liked it.

Sometime later this year, I will probably re-visit small Sig red dots and see how they are.  It has been a little while since I tested them and I suspect they are different from an early Romeo4 I tested a long time ago.

With small-ish red dot sights, there are several I somewhat prefer to the Aimpoint although not for reasons of durability since I do not have a good way to measure it.  The one I have the most mileage with is Shield SIS.  It has been exceedingly robust and quick.  The best collimation quality in small sights is probably Leica Tempus or the slightlylarger Crimson Trace CTS-1400. These co-exist really well with my astigmatism.

ILya

It isn't just marketing.

Aimpoint has proven to be durable and reliable, EOTech has not.  When it comes to a self defense optic, cost is not the point.  You want the most durable, most reliable that you can afford.  The question to ask is, "How much is your life worth to you?"

There is also a strong anti-communist China sentiment going right now.  It doesn't matter where it was made, as long as it wasn't made in communist China.

Run the options through those filters and see what's left.

I like the eotech reticle better too. Green

If the aimpoint had the eotech reticle.  That would do it for me

That has a very small niche to a very small group of shooters who use a Pro Mask or NVG's.
The Majority of shooters are not going to get much out of that little bit.

I've shot Aimpoint's plenty in weird Supine/Urban, call it what ever under the car positions. Never did I think to my self. "Gee I wish I could have my face further away from my carbine"

I get what you're saying, but I think it's a very limited and narrow plus.  But that requirement would be pretty far down on a list of needs/wants.

Vortex UH1 is made in the US with one part coming from UK.  It has been out for a couple of years and reliability has been very good so far.

Shield SIS is made in UK.  Shield CQB and SIS are in use by British troops and seem to do well.

Meprolight MOR is made in Israel.  It is an issued optics for the IDF, so it has been through the ringer and the reports are good.

Several Sig optics are made in the US or Japan.

Reliability/durability is a difficult thing to estimate unless you know the statistics from service centers of particular companies.  I know the actual return numbers for a couple, but not for Aimpoint.  

With Shield vs Aimpoint, the only datapoint I have is the British SAS switched from Aimpoint to Shield CQB after extensive reliability and durability tests.

To be clear, I like Aimpoints and all, but there are other alternatives out there without going to a Chinese-made optic.

My basic point was that we should not be restricting the choice to Aimpoint vs EOTech.

ILya

Your statement actually says nothing. Good job.

Eotech works well. Buy it if you want.

Aimpoint works well. Buy it if you want.

I can tell by this post that you don’t know how any of this works.

If the FOV is bigger. There is more area for the one eye to see the reticle and the brain to put the pictures together. Not difficult to comprehend. Unless of course.... your brain is.... well.... absolute shit.

This comes into play when engaging from unorthodox positions.

Buy Aimpoint if you want.

But Eotech if you want.

Nvrmnd.

It is a benefit. However much an individual values that benefit is subjective. If I had to pick a single overall best RDS, it’d be a current gen Aimpoint, but there are individual merits for other choices that, depending on intended use and preferences, I could see both using and recommending alternatives.

Agree. RDS threads always devolve into Aimpoint vs Eotech (obviously this is the thread title, I’m speaking in generalities). I guess that’s because they’re the big brands, and represent different approaches to the same optic niche. But definitely there are other brands that are worth consideration that get looked over.

Chinese sentiments aside, the Holosun and their half-cousin Sig seem to be on the way up in a big way. Lots of people put the Holosun as a near equal to Aimpoint, and I think the biggest separator from them currently is prior history over current objective differences. Their upper tier stuff is supposed to be pretty darn nice. I don’t know, I only have a few mid-grade Holosuns, but even those have left me really impressed given what I paid. Their ACSS reticle models in particular are very nifty, and allow me a very serviceable linger range range option to my RDS rifles just by popping a magnifier on.

Also, I really like my Meprolight. I haven’t tried the MOR but I understand it’s features and it’s supposed to be awesome. Honestly I really only picked up my former M21 and current Tru-Dot because I wanted to keep my Tavor ‘authentic’ (I’ve since switched to an Israeli surplus ACOG). They’re really nice though, and gave me a lot more optic than I figured I’d get. The Tru-Dot compares well against a similarly priced Aimpoint, and I wouldn’t doubt that their MOR fares well against comparatively priced Aimpoints as well, as well as offering additional features.

I’m not quite sold on the UH-1 yet, but I hear lots good and I’d bet they iron out a lot of small kinks with their Gen 2 aside from just the NVG settings. It’s good to see more competition in the holographic game. I think I’ll stick to my EXPS’s for the time being, but I’d definitely be open to picking one up sooner or later if only to have an example.

It will be interesting to see how the Gen 2 Vortex UH-1 does. I would like to see and support made in the US optics like the UH-1 and even the Eotech. Now that L-3 is out of the picture.

That's great.  It constitutes a list of candidates that pass the filters.

For me, reliability does not require depot stats.  EOTech - 3 purchased, 3 died .  Aimpoint - 2 purchased, all still well and good.

Aimpoint vs EOTech,... well, it is the title of the thread.  

That we can definitely agree on. More competition is a good thing, and the holographic market definitely has room to expand. They will almost surely never compete with the Aimpoint in battery life (and probably overall reliability, to be honest) due to their inherent design, but the technology is neat and has its benefits, and I don’t think it’s done evolving yet.

I have both. The EOtech is faster for acquisition.
Period.
If you think you might have to operate on your own without firesupport that means you cant leave any speed on the table for "muh battery life".

If I only cared about reliability or battery life I'd be running Irons.
The EOtech is reliable enough and the battery lasts long enough.

And its faster which is the entire point of electrooptics.
AND the 1 MOA dot in the middle allows me better long range shooting on top of the faster short range due to the 40 MOA ring.

Eotechs are on my go-to guns.. Aimpoints on my reserve in the bathroom/kitchen guns.

I feel like the larger dot size of Aimpoints is a non-issue. If you’re shooting far enough that the extra 1 MOA of dot would be obscuring the target, the dot would be held well above POI due to bullet drop anyway.

The BDC reticle EoTechs are better at range than a regular RDS, though neither are a ‘good’ tool for the job on the spectrum of optical choices, even paired with a magnifier.

It is not the only point.  There are many people (you will eventually be one) who can no longer see their iron sights well enough or at all.

For them, red dots are about seeing your sights so you can hit what you are aiming at.  For them, it is an enabling technology.  For them, it's not about speed.

So you with your EoTech...Jerry Miculek or Rob Leatham with an Aimpoint....You still faster??

For a person like me who doesn't spend enough time reading the differences, please give us the gist.

I was thinking of getting a new red dot for an AR15. I have an Aimpoint T2 on my HD AR. I was hoping USA made something better by now. After reading this thread, I'm thinking I'm getting another T2. I prefer USA made gear, but  I try to avoid China when possible.
The 2 MOA dot is huge, but for HD I can't complain. It's more about siting it in at the range.  
It's tiny, clear, has options for antireflective honeycomb covers, clear in-use covers, or solid.
The 5 year battery seems inaccurate. I'm thinking it's more like 3 years without a battery swap, which is still extremely impressive.

Why is EOTECH better with night vision? Someday this year, I'll get a gen3 WP tube from TNVC. If I went Aimpoint over the EOTCH, what mistake would I be making?

IMO, it is a distinction without a difference.

The user looks through the window and sees a red dot.

Everything else is a study in how the red dot is generated, the technology.  

To me, more important than the technology is the reliability, or lack thereof.

I did a lot of reading last night on it.
Red dot uses a lot less energy to make a red dot. Better for in the closet or safe and HD. Small 2032 last for years. Eotech takes a CR123A and lasts for a little over a month if left on.
Holographic has an advantage in magnification. Somehow the reticle doesn't magnify with the target. I can't confirm this is true, I only read this.
Site picture is better with a large glass of eotech compared to a small round glass or red dot.
I don't understand how NV is better with one over the other.

If you want the circle dot the trijicon MRO HD now comes with that style reticle

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/01/08/l3-technologies-awarded-26-million-contract-for-special-operations-command-eotech-optics/amp/

I’ve used a 512 overseas as well as a m68 and I liked both, they were good quality optics.
It’s a bit of a surprise to me to hear all the hate toward Eotech performance, I’ve
never personally known anyone with any issues aside from forums like this.

I say check them both out and get what you prefer, both are g2g.

If you want a red dot with virtually zero parallax, large window, ranging reticle, clear glass, and zero optical distortion go with a new model Eotech. Otherwise, Aimpoint T2.