Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 12/4/2005 12:07:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/4/2005 2:47:26 PM EDT by dsg2003gt]
ok, so today I went to the range to sight in my eotech and my aimpoint. The aimpoint resides on my rra carbine. It sits in a larue mount. The eotech sits on top of my RRA midlength in a larue mount. First I sighted them in at 50 yards and the shot from a bench with a bipod enough rounds to get a general idea of how each felt shooting at 50 yards. IMO I was more accurate with the eotech but it was much slower to target, also I think the accuracy had to do with the fact it was on a midlength and the recoil was VERY soft. Switching between the two guns was difficult for me to do as I did not want to put the midlength down.

I liked the way the aimpoint's view was, I dunno it just felt more natual looking through it with both eyes open rather than the eotech....

Anyway here are the targets. The holes in blue were from when I was sighting them in.
eta: top targets are the aimpoint, bottom are the eotech.


rifles:

reticle of aimpoint:

reticle of eotech

and finally the underside of the larue 150 mount for aimpoint:

the notch is to unscrew that small cap and in it you can put another aimpoint battery(for use every few years...)
also, the difference between the regular throw lever and the new one with the safety:


the notch is to unscrew that small cap and in it you can put another aimpoint battery(for use every few years...)
Link Posted: 12/4/2005 1:45:03 PM EDT
Nice pics...great shooting!

Looks like a winner with either one.
Link Posted: 12/4/2005 1:46:42 PM EDT
You're supposed to look through the eotech using both eyes, just like the aimpoint.
Link Posted: 12/4/2005 2:24:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
You're supposed to look through the eotech using both eyes, just like the aimpoint.



I dont think I worded that properly. I like the view better with both eyes open. Both eyes vs both eyes. Rather than closed eye vs. closed eye. For all purposes of this thread both eyes were open.
Link Posted: 12/4/2005 2:36:10 PM EDT
good review Bro
Link Posted: 12/4/2005 3:30:46 PM EDT
I love my Aimpoint M2. Currently, I'm running an ARMS m68 mount with full spacer. Works just fine, but I like the looks of than Larue alot better. Thanks for the comparison.
Link Posted: 12/4/2005 3:59:27 PM EDT
- I figured this would help those out there who do not shoot for a living, those who arent kicking down doors or expert match shooters. This is a real-world comparison(except for them being on different guns) for the average shooter who likes to go to the range and/or keep an BAR for home defense.
Link Posted: 12/4/2005 8:52:05 PM EDT
Since I've never used a decent red dot sight, but am looking to buy either an Aimpoint or Eoteck, are there any more reviews to inform me either way? I'm going to be putting it on an AR pistol, but it could always end up on some other rifle. I've been researching both, but the technical information hasn't helped a whole lot.
How close does a person's eye usually have to be, to see the dot? As close as a scope?
Does the dot or reticle show itself only when the target is dead on? On a scope the target is in the field of view wherever you want it. If it shows itself all the time, do you have to guess where the center of the unit is to be accurate. That sort of sounds confusing. I've only used a cheap Brass Eagle bebe gun red dot before and I couldn't see how anyone could be on target with that. Will these be the same way, and force the user to guess when the dot is centered and therefore accurate.
Is it hard to find the red dot or reticle without the use of metal sights to judge alignment?
I probably just need to buy one and then screw with it. I like the Eotech design as far as slimness, with what looks like a larger viewing surface. The Aimpoint, however bulkier, can use a killflash and stay protected by built in covers.
Help Please!!!!!!
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 7:36:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/5/2005 7:37:34 AM EDT by Gimme_A_Carbine]

Originally Posted By Nemolicious:
Since I've never used a decent red dot sight, but am looking to buy either an Aimpoint or Eoteck, are there any more reviews to inform me either way? I'm going to be putting it on an AR pistol, but it could always end up on some other rifle. I've been researching both, but the technical information hasn't helped a whole lot.
How close does a person's eye usually have to be, to see the dot? As close as a scope?
Does the dot or reticle show itself only when the target is dead on? On a scope the target is in the field of view wherever you want it. If it shows itself all the time, do you have to guess where the center of the unit is to be accurate. That sort of sounds confusing. I've only used a cheap Brass Eagle bebe gun red dot before and I couldn't see how anyone could be on target with that. Will these be the same way, and force the user to guess when the dot is centered and therefore accurate.
Is it hard to find the red dot or reticle without the use of metal sights to judge alignment?
I probably just need to buy one and then screw with it. I like the Eotech design as far as slimness, with what looks like a larger viewing surface. The Aimpoint, however bulkier, can use a killflash and stay protected by built in covers.
Help Please!!!!!!



IMHO, you can't really be sure which sight you would be best suited using without trying them.

All the things you are referring to with dot location, accuracy, etc, have to do with parallax. Both the Aimpoint and the EOTech are parallax free (out to a certain distance). With both of these sights, you don't have to worry about where the dot is positioned within the optic (doesn't need to be centered); the bullets will hit where the dot is. Considering these optics are not magnified, it doesn't matter how close or far your eye is from it to see the dot clearly.

Also, it's not hard to acquire the dot without iron sights, and it is totally unneccessary for "alignment" due to the above mentioned lack of parallax issues.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the differences of the two sigts, but here are a few basic ones:
EOTech-
Button interface
Tubeless
Lower batt life (but more common-if AA is used/can use rechargables)
Circle/Dot reticle
Built in mount

Aimpoint-
Tube design
Almost endless batt life
Single Dot reticle
No mount (which gives greater flexibility, but more cost)
Rotary knob interface
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 9:47:54 PM EDT
Thanks for the explanation. I'm going to take your advice and find one of each to test out, before I place the order.
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 4:13:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Nemolicious:
The Aimpoint, however bulkier, can use a killflash and stay protected by built in covers.
Help Please!!!!!!



The fact that the Aimpoint needs a killflash is a point against it. The EOTech uses clear flat glass lenses that are anti-reflective coated. No killflash filter is required for the EOTech which will save you money. The killflash also cuts down on light transmission by 20% making the image darker. EOTech has better light transmission to begin with, so it is much brighter than an Aimpoint with a killflash.

Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:16:39 PM EDT
Thanks Manx, You answered the one question that has been still bothering me. I'm thinking an Eotech is in my near future. I do love that display reticle.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 3:52:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Manx:
The fact that the Aimpoint needs a killflash is a point against it.

It's only a point against it in your book. Some of use consider the Killflash a benefit.

The EOTech uses clear flat glass lenses that are anti-reflective coated. No killflash filter is required for the EOTech which will save you money.
A Killfash is $34. To some, that's a lot of money and to others that's pocket change. YMMV. In the context of buying the optic and the mount, it's a pittance.

The killflash also cuts down on light transmission by 20% making the image darker.
This is correct but I have to say it has never bothered me. As a matter of fact, when shooting outside in the sun, I find the higher contrast a benefit.

EOTech has better light transmission to begin with, so it is much brighter than an Aimpoint with a killflash.
Agreed. It should also be noted that the Killflash also acts as a sacrificial lense. And don't even bring up battery life.

The only reason I'm bringing up these points is to balance the eternal argument over Aimpoint and EO Tech. They are both great optics. You can't go wrong with either one.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:00:06 AM EDT
I believe the killflash is only really needed if you think someone may be shooting back at you.
Correct?

Is the ML3 a 3 moa dot?

Thanks for the review and pics.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:21:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mini14jac:
I believe the killflash is only really needed if you think someone may be shooting back at you.
Correct?

That's what it was designed for but it does have other benefits (see my previous post). Yes, it's not something the average range hound needs, it's nice to have.

Is the ML3 a 3 moa dot?
No. The M3 and ML3 are available with a 2 MOA or 4 MOA dot. It seems that most dealers are only stocking the 2 MOA version. Unmagnified, the 2 MOA dot is fine. If you want a fatter dot, just turn up the brightness a notch. However, with the magnifier, the difference between the 2 MOA and 4 MOA dot is noticeable.

Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:26:13 AM EDT
Great thread!!!

Now leave both units on and see what battery lasts longer
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 10:20:14 AM EDT
You followed the mantra and GOT BOTH!

On the EOTech, are you sure that's not a 551? Typo in the title?
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 2:11:52 PM EDT
I figured their would not be much of a difference at 50 yds. now you have to go back to 100Yds and post he results... then 150yd and 200yd...etc,etc.

Great review

And Matt_B is dead on about the Aimpoint killflash. the difference in contrast bewtween the dot and the killflash on a bright sunny day is actually very helpful in QUICKLY finding the dot and aquiring the tgt. and does a good job as a disposable lens protector.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 5:03:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M4-guy:
You followed the mantra and GOT BOTH!

On the EOTech, are you sure that's not a 551? Typo in the title?


definitely a 512 no NV capability.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 9:45:47 AM EDT
Oops, that's what I meant - a AA battery model, 512 or 552.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 11:34:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gimme_A_Carbine:

IMHO, you can't really be sure which sight you would be best suited using without trying them.



I have to disagree with this -- I have both and I still can't decide which is better for me.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 3:46:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 3:46:41 AM EDT by Hokie]

Originally Posted By vandal:

Originally Posted By Gimme_A_Carbine:

IMHO, you can't really be sure which sight you would be best suited using without trying them.



I have to disagree with this -- I have both and I still can't decide which is better for me.




I wrestled with that same issue....then rolled towards the Aimpoint ML2 4MOA dot.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 3:54:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 3:56:13 AM EDT by Mr45auto]

Originally Posted By Hokie:
Great thread!!!

Now leave both units on and see what battery lasts longer



Considering the Eotech will turn off in 4 or 8 hours......

I love my Eo's but wouldnt be against choosing an aimpoint. Both are very serviceable close range optics. I just wish the magnifier was a bit less expensive!
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 5:52:20 PM EDT
I have had both, I no longer have the Aimpoint, you cant beat the 1MOA dot, much better for accuaracy-speed combination. MOA is what it boils down to for me.
Top Top