Do you guys prefer an eotech or aimpoint t2/t1/comp m5 for night vision use?

Also riser or no riser?

Thanks

I do not trust eotech anymore after the recall. Aimpoint Pro for me with NV

I used to prefer Aimpoint due to battery life and the rotary switch of the Comp series. I use to run a riser but having irons is a must IMHO so I stick with a 1/3 CW. Since having a LAM on the end of my rig with a white/IR M622V gets to be heavy after awhile I know run a RMO. I use a IR laser for aiming above the optic under nods and the RDS on a visible setting if I wanted to aim in a no light scenario, use with white light, or when going from dark to a lit environment.

This, but the EOTech format is awesome for use with NODs.

I prefer the EOTech, but both work fine.



This comparison photographs aren't great (did 'em in my backyard trying to balance a rifle, a monocular, and my iPhone ), but it more or less gets the point across:

Top Left: White Light
Top Right: NVGs no optic
Bottom Left: EOTech
Bottom Right: Aimpoint T1

With the EOTech you will get some faint shadowing of the housing (more visible with a monocular than binoculars), but your field of view is more or less 100% light transmission.

The Aimpoint has a less clear shape of the housing, but you will get a dark "lolipop" shape in your field of view where the dot is, again, more visible with a monocular than a binocular, but apparent nonetheless. Also note that the T1 is mounted on an LT-751, which is a "T" shaped mount with a thin center post that allows a lot of light in around it--mount selection will play a roll in light collection, as a thicker mount base will block more light.

With the T1, you will see the misshapen dot (same issue with magnifiers), but this has been supposedly fixed on the T2 and presumably on the M5, though I haven't had a chance to check this specifically.

Both are great for shorter range, moving targets, high contrast and mixed light settings, etc.--where the EOTech shows an advantage, IMHO, is at mid to longer ranges where it becomes harder to distinguish targets/you begin losing resolution. Long story short--the brighter your reticule is, the dimmer your image is going to get, and the more the bloom off the reticule is going to cause target obscuration. Granted, with either optic, this is more a matter of adjusting your reticule brightness for the target/range, but it's worth mentioning.

Given that, the EOTech, by not dimming (or dimming less) your aiming area, will make it easier to pick up targets at range through the optic. The EOTech also has more brightness settings than the Micros, which on the one hand means you can more easily fine tune the brightness, but it might be a little slower to cycle through all of them.

The EOTech also has an "NV" button that allows you to rapidly switch between NV-mode and Visible/Daylight, and the brightness level can be preset, i.e., you can be running it passive in NV-mode, but if you enter a brightly lit area, you can simply go to daylight mode at a preset brightness with a button push, rather than having to cycle back "out" of the NV settings and find the right visible setting and vice-versa. That being said, in mixed light conditions, e.g., urban areas, I often find that I need to use the "very low" visible settings rather than the NV settings to have a usable reticule, so that can negate that particular advantage in those situations.

Again, they both work fine, but a Micro format sight will give you a little more image distortion/dimming, especially around the target, versus the relative "openness" of the EOTech. Nevertheless, while I have a slight preference for the EOTech in this application, they both work, and I own and use both, and I would not feel seriously disadvantaged by one over the other.

Oh, and yes to risers, definitely risers.

~Augee

Thanks for the input.

The aimpoint does look best on the KAC riser though

My personal preference is Aimpoint.  For years, I wanted to like EoTech, but reliability issues always brought me back to Aimpoint.

For use with NVGs...I have found that the full-size (M2/PRO profile) work better for me than the micros (T1).  Faster/easier to get a solid sight picture.  Actually, I think this is true for me during daylight as well, but this is pretty subjective and I haven't found a good way to capture data to prove or disprove this.  But the larger lens unquestionably helps when wearing goggles.

Riser - yes.  I use a 1/3 cowitness in conjunction with a .5" riser.  Without the riser, I can't get low enough to get the goggles behind the optic.  That's just me though - you should try for yourself before deciding.  As mentioned above - that renders the backup irons invisible...my Aimpoints all live on QD mounts, so if one goes down, I'll just get rid of it.

This whole setup is designed to be able to use the optic in conjunction the NVGs...a lot of people don't shoot that way;  for those folks that keep their eyes "above" the sights/optic, and just use the ir aiming laser, then I'd forego the riser.  For me, the aiming laser is secondary, but I think I'm part of a small minority that shoots this way.

Ya been trying to understand use of riser vs not...I guess it really is situational dependent.

It’s really not super context-dependent, more individual body structure than anything else:

Attached File


Whether they realize it or not, most people, in order to get a “cheek weld,” are actually angling their heads down, and pointing their eyes up slightly, so their “neutral line of sight” is angled down as well, and they are actually rolling their eyes slightly up in order to aim through their optic.

While my shitty drawing is a little exaggerated, this is the classic “tactical turtle” turtle stance where people try to suck their necks in and roll their shoulders up, and hunch forward into their rifles, NTCH shooting only further encourages this.

This is usually just fine without NODs, but NODs are typically adjusted to line up with your NLOS, meaning for most people, aiming this way with NVGs presents a severe problem:

Attached File

(Yes, that’s the Combat Calico making an appearance to learn more about riser shooting and passive NVG aiming )

The addition of a small riser, however, allows most people to put their sight, and therefore their sight line at or near their NLOS, and also keeping the head more vertical:

Attached File


This then means that you can more easily place your NODs in-line, and look straight through them, through your optic:

Attached File


Meanwhile, even without NODs, the more “heads up” position just generally puts less stress on your body, reducing fatigue in general, allowing you to stay “on target” for longer, while both the paychological effect of being more relaxed allows you to maintain better situational awareness, as well as the fact that you’re just less “tucked in” to the gun, and can see and sense more around you, meanwhile, if you really must have a cheek weld, a cheek iser or pad would still allow you to keep the “heads up” position, while still allowing you to get that “chipmunk cheek” in there.

Hence, #riserlyfe

~Augee

So for an eotech exps3-0 what riser do you recommend? Thanks

For most folks ~2” above the AR’s standard rail height is sufficient, though the exact height can differ depending on individual body structure.

Most “Lower-1/3” height optics, including the EXPS series are around 1.75” above the rail (most “Absolute Cowitness” sights are around 1.52”-1.54”).

The most common risers are 0.5” tall, though 5/8” (0.625”) are also available. The LaRue LT-110 ECOS-C (EOTech mount) places the optic ~1/4” above the rail (~7mm/.276”), while Wilcox makes a .410” riser as well. The KAC “skyscraper” mount places the optic about 2.33”, while the HK416 upper receiver rail is ~1/4”-3/8” taller than a standard AR.

Meanwhile, many “NV compatible” mounts are 1.93” above the standard rail, which is also incidentally the required height to clear an AN/PEQ-2 or ATPIAL so that it does not interfere with the optic’s FOV.

~Augee

Augee, do you find the standard 1/3 mount on the eotech at 1.75 to be sufficient for shooting with binos, is it worth it to raise it to 2”? I’m trying decide if I really need a riser or not.

Aimpoint for me. If I use it with Night Vision, then I'll mount the PVS-14 to the rifle. Of course helmet mounted PVS-14 with a IR laser on the rifle is an awesome setup.

AimPoint all the way...

I love the reticle of the EoTech, but I've had issues with several of mine over the years Vs. zero issues on my AimPoints

Dude Augee thanks for those drawings! You contribute great info man, thanks!

Aimpoint T-2 in a KAC Redback-One mount is the only way to fly for passive NODs engagement.

Frankly the laser on my rifle is becoming vestigial. I'm not sure why I need it anymore. The illuminator is still useful though.

While I feel the Aimpoint to be the better combat RDS, the Eotech is much easier to use when sighting through the optic with a head mounted night vision device.

Yerrrrp.

High-rise optics + a good LAM is the way to go, IMHO, for a "24/7" gun. While I use my IR laser less since becoming a passive aiming disciple (and occasional evangelist), I still do use it. Perhaps more importantly, an IR illuminator is still an important item to have, and I'm just not a huge fan of dual-spectrum illuminators, especially if you may need to do an NV/WL transition at short notice. An IR pointer can also be good for C2/designation if you're working in a team under NV.

Meanwhile, for those that continue to be "on the fence" about passive aiming and/or risers, again--I cannot but stress what an almost shocking difference just a little bit of extra height makes, even if you're already using lower-1/3 optics when trying to aim passively through your day optic. If you're interested in even just trying it out, I would recommend picking up a cheap, 1/2" riser, seriously, short riser sections can be had for under $20 at most places, they may not be the best permanent solution, but you can use them on the range as a "proof of concept" before deciding whether or not getting a high-rise optic mount, or another riser/riser-system is worth it for you.

Burris 1/2" Picatinny Riser (short)--$14.99 @ MidwayUSA

~Augee

That used to be true. Now with the KAC/RedbackOne Skyscraper mount and Aimpoint T-2, I'd say the Aimpoint/KAC is the clear winner for passive engagement.

I agree that aiming lasers are still useful as pointers in team settings or when working with aircraft. Of course, some laser illuminators can do that job nearly as well as an aiming laser.

Passive engagement will become more important with time. As NODs proliferate there will be more and more environments where shining IR lights/lasers around is a bad idea.

Would a piggybacked RMR on top of an ACOG be usable in a technique as Illustrated by Augee?

Augee, are you saying ~2" to line of sight or 2" of riser under the optic? Just for my clarity, I like doing things just once if I can.

I've been curious about this as well. My concern, since I do 99% of my shooting during daylight, is what effect a high mount has on cowitness and POI offset? I've used the PEQ15 extensively at work on DI M4s, but I'm not really interested in adding any more weight to the front end of a 16" piston gun, so laser/illuminator is actually my least favorite course of action in this case. I would much prefer to devise a passive NV setup, if I'm able to find one that works well.

I can see the benefits of both Aimpoints and Eotech, and I've owned several of both over the years. I personally don't necessarily care for one over the other, it all depends on what I intend to use my rifle for. I personally don't find Aimpoint to be all that great for passive NV shooting, there's just not enough light transmission. There's also the issue of the dot being projected onto the objective lens, so obtaining a sight picture isn't as forgiving when you have to align a night vision device with the tube.

Yes, but depending on the model, especially if it's an auto-brightness adjusting model, it may be too bright for further targets, especially with a monocular. Obviously, with a manual-adjust, NV compatible model, it'll be much better.

For whatever reason, most manufacturers use a measurement from the top of the rail to the centerline of the optic:



Because this tends to be the industry standard, it just becomes easiest to express it in those terms. Where this becomes a little more complicated is with non-ARs (e.g., FN SCAR) and/or ARs with non-standard rail heights (e.g., HK416), which may not only have different upper receiver rail heights, but also different relationships between the stock comb, toe, and receiver height. 1.93" is the generally accepted height to clear a 12 o'clock mounted LAM from the optic's field of view, which is a "fixed" height, i.e., the LAM is obviously the same height over the receiver rail, regardless of how tall the receiver itself is.

You will most likely lose cowitness if you go above Lower-1/3 height unless you mount you BIS on risers as well (e.g., the Wilcox riser set).

As far as POI offset, as I've stated before, maybe a better shooter than I might notice the difference, but I've found it to be a non-issue. The AR has pretty tall sights to begin with compared to a conventionally stocked rifle, and not too many folks these days complain about the relative offset, and the use of tall optics, beginning with carry handle mounted optics originated with some pretty serious face shooters, and continues to this day, you want to talk about tall optics, here's a pretty damn serious fella:



That's an EOTech 551 mounted on top of a detachable carry handle mounted on an HK416. That's a little higher than I'd be comfortable with, but it doesn't seem to have given him too much trouble.

That being said, for a "serious social rifle," I would still recommend both the ability to aim passively, but also an IR LAM, not to mention a good white light. If you're concerned about weight, while it's not my preference, I've known guys who are much better and more experienced shooters than I who prefer to run their lasers further back, sometimes damn near touching their optic mounts, to keep the weight shifted to the back. If you're doing 99% of your shooting daylight, and then most of your NV shooting passive, then having the IR laser in a "less than optimal" position may be the better solution, what you do will drive how you set up your gear. That being said, if you really get into NV shooting, IMHO, daylight shooting frankly just gets kinda boring.

~Augee

I wasn't aware that the KAC Skyscraper changed the size and shape of the T2's housing or made the dot smaller, I need to check out this technology...

I use Micros just fine as passive sights, but to say that they're the same is a little disingenuous. The Skyscraper mount is nice, to be sure, but really all it is is a one-piece riser/mount combination that you can use iron sights with, it doesn't change the fundamental differences between the two optics, it's still largely a matter of preference between two fairly different optics formats.

For the most part you're preaching to the choir here, in terms of "social use," the days of relying on technological superiority have long since passed, which has been at least part of the impetus behind the increasing focus on using passive engagement techniques, even extending to things like IFF/C^2 (mission command) techniques that have relied on IR lasers and strobes. You know it's a bad sign when even the NYT is catching on:

The Taliban Have Gone High-Tech. That Poses a Dilema for the U.S.   New York Times, April 01, 2018

At the same time, no one that I know of/have talked to/am aware of has totally eschewed the use of IR LAMs, even if they're using passive engagement as the primary means of target engagement, just like white lights and even visible lasers haven't gone away. Different solutions work better for different situations, a good, full service LAM also gives you more than just an aiming point, and among other things, especially when it comes to restricted power units, you're really not going to find a better solution for IR illumination than what's available as part of a LAM should you need it.

~Augee

The height of the Skyscraper is much higher than most EOTech/Riser combos. Also it allows both BUIS use (non-cowitness) and a magnifier for non-NODs applications.

The dot is sharper with my T-2's than the T-1's I had. The glass isn't as dark either, and with NODs the smaller body of the T-2 when forward mounted is an advantage as it allows the NODs to see "around" the optic instead of completely through the glass of the optic. You really shouldn't even see the optic if you're focused correctly.

The T2 definitely has some improvements over the T1, meanwhile, not only is the housing of the EOTech "thinner" than even the Micro, none of this changes the diameter of the tube, and therefore the amount of light transmitted through the optic. The actual practical difference, just like with day scopes with different tube and objective sizes, can range from irrelevant under good illum conditions, to extremely important under poorer illum.

The KAC Skyscraper mount (2.33" height) is, for all intents and purposes, a 5/8" riser with an integral Lower-1/3 mount:



Unsurprising given Falla's previous setup:



The same height can be accomplished with an EOTech EXPS on the same LT101 5/8" riser he's using in the above photograph, or with a Wilcox 5/8" riser, and both also allow the use of a magnifier with the day optic.

The KAC Skyscraper is a great solution, and I'm very happy that it exists as an option, but it's not a magical contraption that does something that was heretofore unattainable.

Again, despite a slight personal preference in this application for the EOTech, I'm not trying to push either as objectively better or worse than the other, it's fine to not use, not like, not trust, etc., EOTechs and prefer the Aimpoint, but they're different optics with advantages and disadvantages to each, and it's disingenuous to claim that an optic mount somehow negates the existence of those differences, when the exact same thing (minus receiver-height iron sight compatibility) can easily be accomplished using common, off-the-shelf parts that have existed for years.

P.S. Lest I be accused of not being sufficiently supportive of the T2/KAC Skyscraper mount combo, I'd like to point out that my original illustration, prior to this becoming a "debate," despite not being a 100% true to detail rendering, I thought fairly clearly depicted a T2 on a Skyscraper in order to illustrate the benefits of using high-rise optics:

Attached File


~Augee

Augee youre the man!

Thanks Augee!

Nice thread Augee.

You the new Beuowulf X rep?

How much of a height difference is there between the kac highrise and the kac aimpoint base mount?

Well, EOtechs have less parallax... so there's that.

I never trusted eotech sights. They just break. Not to mention the reticle looks like garbage if you ask me. My Holosun 503c reticle rapes the eotech reticle. Not even close in crispness and clarity.

The answer is always riser. Even when the question is something else lol.

Any thoughts on best method for passive engagements with an elcan? Maybe the top mounted MRDS?

Every one of those sketches has a dude with a chin-weld...

why do you hate proper cheek welds?

For what its worth my experience has been:
T2 + LT660 + SCAR =
Pro + Aero Canti 30mm Mount + AR =
(mainly for height over bore and size issues)

The main reason I run a single tube PVS 14 and also use the standard 1/3 co-witness RDS mount mainly due to having back up irons if needed. By canting your head slightly upward and laying your ear lobe on the stock acquiring a sight picture through my RDS has not been a problem. I've tried the KAC Skyscraper and all sorts of risers but the weight, losing your backup irons, possible parallax shift, unstable chin weld and shear weight was enough to go back to a standard 1/3 mount.

Interesting.

You don't lose your backup irons with the KAC Skyscraper.

The cheek-weld is perfectly stable for me. Try adjusting your posture.