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: 7/1/2003 4:28:50 AM EDT
First off, my apologies because I am sure this topic has been asked to death. However, I am trying to learn all I can before I make the leap.

I already have several rifles capable of 200 yards and beyond.

What I do need is a premiere CQB weapon for dynamic entries, room clearances etc.

Would the Eotech 552 be the best system for this type of work? Or is there an ACOG variant that is especially good for up close and personal work?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Link Posted: 7/1/2003 5:15:58 AM EDT
I have an Eotech 511 and love it. I think it's the best choice in optics for what you've stated your intended uses are. I'm sure you'll get a ton of opinions.
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 7:48:04 AM EDT
Well, I have looked through several Eotechs mounted on AR's and I must say that I still prefer my Aimpoint, but the Eotech would be my second choice if I could not afford an ACOG. JMO
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 7:55:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/1/2003 7:57:04 AM EDT by slapshot12]
After lots of comparing of the EOTech and the Aimpoint, I went with the EOTech 512. My AR will be carried on duty and used for CQB and short (up to 75 yrds) shots. While looking at other deputies guns, I fund that the EOTech was quickly for me to get up on target and just all around easier. I went with the 512 over the 511 due to the AA batteries lasting many times longer than the standrads abttery in the 511 and the AA being readily available. I found that most people prefer one over the other. I would recommend looking at both and see which one you feel more comfortable with. The ACOGs are nice, but I found them very overpriced. The EOTech just seem to fit my needs perfectly.
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 8:05:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 8:07:19 AM EDT
YEA, the aimpoint tube can look dark. i like the eotech
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 8:43:05 AM EDT
The single pane setup enable the operator to have a unconstructive view forward, the openness provided by EOTech lower the time needed to engage multiple targets. This is evident in an exercise I conducted with LA county sheriff SEB SWAT members. I was out in a shoot house hallway where I have to make entry into three interconnected rooms with unknown number of tangos. In one room, I had to engage multiple hostiles in a very speedy fashion. Using SEB’s EOTech equipped CAR, I was able to obtain a better time then with my personal Aimpoint equipped M4. Also the 65MOA out circle enable you to bracket the CQB target out to 25 yard sand make super fast shot. In my opinion, there is no faster sight then EOTech when it comes to CQB optics.
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 12:54:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SMGLee: Also the 65MOA out circle enable you to bracket the CQB target out to 25 yards and make super fast shots. In my opinion, there is no faster sight then EOTech when it comes to CQB optics.
View Quote
Agreed, I tested several optics before I went with the EOTech. As a city cop it fits my needs perfectly for the CQB work I end up doing. As an instructor for my department I use it to demo how much faster optics are when used in multiple target engagement.
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 3:19:43 PM EDT
Thank you for the replies. I know this board is heavily biased in favor of ACOG, but after hearing what people have had to say, I realize that there are better optics out there for strictly CQB work at less than 75 yards. Money is not an object, but reliable and fast optics under rigorous and demanding conditions are paramount. I have also heard some good things about Aimpoint.... I will have to narrow down my selection between Aimpoint and Eotech.
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 6:23:56 PM EDT
after being a long time aimpoint user, i was recently 'converted' to the eotech, helped along by smglee, and i concur with his opinion that it's the fastest CQB sight i've used. i'm also an ACOG user (TA01NSN) and it's not really suited for CQB (which is why i stuck an optima on top to get the best of both worlds). but for a dedicated CQB weapon, it's hard to beat the eotech. just MHO. cheers, MM
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 6:40:41 PM EDT
Bob_LA, thanks for asking the exact question I was going to! I also have narrowed it down to the Aimpoint or EOTech, I am really leaning toward the EO for speed of acquisition. Not trying to hijack your thread, but my question is.. I have an A1 carbine for this that I had just purchased a A.R.M.s A-2 plus gooseneck mount for, in preperation for the EO and now read here that it will not co-witness the irons.I hate to have to buy another mount, but will if necessary. Can this be made to work, or is cowitnessing all that important? it seems to me that it is and that having an iron sight offset in the sight picture could be distracting when at the range. Opinions please!
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 11:24:34 PM EDT
I'll echo the same in support for the Eotech. I had one on my CAR for awhile. Very nice. However my enviorment now makes me glad I switched to the M68. I'm shooting bad guy's here in Baghdad and the sight I need has to meet the demands of a war. I can close the covers on my optics and not worry about vision impairment due to dust. That's a grave concern when you need to shoot on reflex. And on real bright conditions I leave the front cover down and use both eyes to aim. It's old technology but is what is on 99% of military weapons.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 5:06:15 AM EDT
I love the BAC ACOGs for general purpose sights; but for dedicated close-range (indoor distances) shooting I haven't seen anything faster than the EOtech.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 6:39:37 AM EDT
Decisions, decisions.... I have to tell you, I find the Aimpoint more aesthetically pleasing. The optics will be mounted on a flatop receiver along with an AN-PVS14 NVS. However, in this world of no compromises, it is absolute function over form. It's important for me to have the best available CQB optic available, and it is shaping up to be the Eotech. I really appreciate all the replies so far.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 7:01:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/2/2003 7:04:05 AM EDT by Hokie]
The EoTech simply IS the fastest and by far the BEST CQB sight you can get your hands on. Look no further. IMHO it suits my 0-200 yard needs also.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 7:28:36 AM EDT
Okay..... I ordered an Eotech 552 from SWFA this morning. I will T&E this unit and hopefully it will meet my need tactical needs. As I've said before, this goes on my CQB only gun. If I use it beyond 50 yards, that would be a stretch. Basically, I need something for rapid target acquisition, facing possible multiple targets in an enclosed environment. Truth be told, this optic mounted on an M-4 will be taking the place of an MP-5 for room clearances and dynamic entry situations. This seems to be the shift amongst most tactical entry folks... If I have to reach out and touch someone far away, I have plenty of other weapons at my disposal. Thanks again for the help.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 7:38:07 AM EDT
Ok - I've gotta ask - If you're talking CQB, then why bother with a sight at all. The US Army had a BCT drill (back in the 60's)using small metal discs and BB guns. It was called instictive fire. Two men were paired up and one threw the disc into the air while the other shot at it with the BB gun. Then, we'd switch places. That went on to using an M-16 on 12 and 25 meter targets. You'd be surprised at how good you can get at this with a small amount of practice. (Kinda like those western movies where a guy can't hit a target at 25 yards with a rifle, but can topple a rustler off a cliff at 300 yards while at full gallup using his trusty 6-shooter!!!!) Really - it works - and I still practice it without using a sight picture at all.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 7:48:01 AM EDT
LRP, To answer your question it is because 85% of my time (operating and training) is spent in low light conditions. I need optical enhancement mostly to give me an edge under dismal lighting conditions. Now one could probably get away with trijicon sight posts, but I am ready to give this new technology a chance. It would not be fair for a trainer like myself to badmouth anything without having first tried it. I am intimately familiar with iron sights with and without tritium enhancement. However, before I go around poo-pooing new technology, I need to T&E it and give it a fair shake.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 8:35:16 AM EDT
I own both an EOTech 551 and an Aimpoint M2. I have to say that for [b]ME[/b] the Aimpoint is faster on target. It just feels more natural to me. Don't get me wrong, I am also happy with the EOTech. But, the Aimpoint gets a slight edge in speed. TRY them both before you buy! Optics are a VERY individual thing.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 8:39:57 AM EDT
Livefire, Interesting.. You are the first to state their preference for Aimpoint over the Eotech for speed. As I stated earlier, I ordered an Eotech to T&E. Down the road, I expect to order an Aimpoint also. One of the advantages of having a company credit card with relatively free reign to purchase and test what I see fit.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 7:25:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 5:50:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 6:38:32 AM EDT
PaulE: I'm changing my own subject here, but I've actually been involved in shootings involving armed aggressors. With all the adrenaline and the fog of war, almost all of your shots are going to be "instinctive" that's why it's so important to train with whatever one chooses. Hate to say it, but I have no conscious recollection of even looking at my sights in my last shooting incident. It's easy to talk theory, but ask someone who has experienced shooting at or being shot at, and see if they remember looking down their sight channel. In many cases they do not.
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 9:07:30 AM EDT
First of all ley me clarify - By instictive shooting, in the civilian world, I do not mean throwing targets into the air and blasting away at them with a .223 cal weapon. Hence an undefendable downrange situation may well develope from such irresponsible actions. I mean using a range facility, at short distances at less than 25 meters. That said... I can tell you, first hand, that military combat is not like a police situation. At best, there is little warning - if any at all - when the enemy may be engaged. An ambush is over before most peolple even realize what happened. For anyone to learn to fire a weapon, instinctively, and accurately, may well pay off. If someone likes the tactical sights (and I do!!) I'd be the first to tell them to use them and practice, practice. practice. However, should a "real" defense situation occur, there aint a lot-o-time to remember if the dot was turned on or how far out a battlesight zero is. That is my point - not to put down or delete from the use of tactical sight applications.
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 9:11:41 AM EDT
Dang - I got a long way off from the EOTech question didn't I... ??
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 11:36:27 AM EDT
This is the same decision I am trying to make. Here is a list I am thinking may help. It has lots of gaps, feel free to add something. Eotech- 65moa ring excellent for CQB, 1moa dot good for medium ranges (out to 100 yds+?) Aimpoint- 4moa dot is a compromise. Battery life- Aimpoint wins. Flattop- lots of mounting options for both. A2 handle- needs a gooseneck. It has been suggested that you see more of the aimpoint picture. Ruggedness- ? Weight- ? Field of view- Eotech isn't constricted by a tube, so you see more. Price is fairly similar (at least compared to ACOGs or cheapie scopes). Obviously there are lots of subjective criteria as well.
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 12:09:28 PM EDT
seems to me that the mounting options for the eotech are kinda lousy, unless you drop some major $$ on a bi-level SIR, especially the otherwise more desireable 552 w/AA batts. there ain't much room on a flattop with one of those things, and they sit too high on a swan sleeve or similar. can't imagine getting one of those things off real quick either should the need arise.
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 12:48:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 2minkey: seems to me that the mounting options for the eotech are kinda lousy
View Quote
Yes the are limited.
especially the otherwise more desireable 552 w/AA batts.
View Quote
I fit my 552 and ARMS #40 with some room left over on my flattop upper. A bit of the front hangs over the delta ring - but that's ok.
can't imagine getting one of those things off real quick either should the need arise.
View Quote
How is it any different from the Quick Release for the Aimpoint? Turn the knob and pull off the sight.
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 1:04:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By vote_republican: Eotech- 65moa ring excellent for CQB, 1moa dot good for medium ranges (out to 100 yds+?) Aimpoint- 4moa dot is a compromise.
View Quote
Dot on the EO Tech should be good to 400y easy - as should the Aimpoint's dot. However you could [i]theoretically[/i] make head shots with the EO Tech to 300y with that 1moa dot (I don't recommend it though).
Battery life- Aimpoint wins. [/qutoe] Yes but battery availability the EoTech 552 wins hands down (I can get AA batteries EVERYWHERE). Plus the Rev 'E' and later 552's can us NiMH rechargables...
Flattop- lots of mounting options for both.
View Quote
Aimpoint wins here hands down. More options, and you can mount it at the 'correct' height with the irons in the lower 1/3 of the tube. EO Tech mounts with the irons at mid point (too high IMHO). Also the knob mount for the EO Tech is not captive and if you unscrew it too much it can come off (i.e. not soldier proof).
Ruggedness- ?
View Quote
Probably a nod to the Aimpoint - but the later models of the EO Tech are extreamly rugged. Note the EO Tech's lens can take dammage and continue to function.
Weight- ?
View Quote
Model 552 11.5 oz (AA Battery model with mount) Model 551 8oz (N Battery model with mount) CompM2 7.1oz (w/o mount, add 4oz for the AL mount - total weight is 11.1 oz) No significant advantage. The M2 with mount is pretty much the same as the 552. The 551 is only 3oz lighter.
Price is fairly similar (at least compared to ACOGs or cheapie scopes).
View Quote
Here EO Tech is in the lead as it comes with its mount. With the Aimpoint you have to buy another mount.
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 2:52:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/3/2003 2:54:17 PM EDT by Yojimbo]
Originally Posted By Forest:
Originally Posted By 2minkey: seems to me that the mounting options for the eotech are kinda lousy
View Quote
Yes the are limited.
especially the otherwise more desireable 552 w/AA batts.
View Quote
I fit my 552 and ARMS #40 with some room left over on my flattop upper. A bit of the front hangs over the delta ring - but that's ok.
can't imagine getting one of those things off real quick either should the need arise.
View Quote
How is it any different from the Quick Release for the Aimpoint? Turn the knob and pull off the sight.
View Quote
Forest speaks the truth! The 552 can indeed be mounted directly to the flat top and still have plenty of room for the ARMS 40 BUIS. I also didn't have any problem using the EOTech controls with this setup either. Here's how my carbine looked for 24 hours until my SIR #50 came in[;)]! [img]http://a6.cpimg.com/image/70/D2/19917936-d7a4-02000180-.jpg[/img] It was also quite quick and handy is this config too! In my view I thought it was an advantage to have the built in mount. Granted the ARMS flip mount's are about 2 second faster to remove but the thumb screw is not much slower.
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 3:23:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MSTN: IMO, THE AIMPOINT NEATLY WINS ON ALL POINTS. BUT WTF DO I KNOW? WES
View Quote
You know enough to like the better of the two [;)]...Thanks for selling me my Aimpoint
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 4:17:15 PM EDT
Wow, I see this thread has turned a little into the "Ford" vs. "Chevy" debate. We could probably go on and on, and not sway the opinions of proponents on either side. I'm glad for once, we could have a healthy discussion without mentioning the ACOG. I can see now that I will have to order an Aimpoint too just to be fair. Thanks for all the great input! Bob
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 6:22:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Forest:
Flattop- lots of mounting options for both.
View Quote
Aimpoint wins here hands down. More options, and you can mount it at the 'correct' height with the irons in the lower 1/3 of the tube. EO Tech mounts with the irons at mid point (too high IMHO). Also the knob mount for the EO Tech is not captive and if you unscrew it too much it can come off (i.e. not soldier proof).
View Quote
Can someone post a pic of an Eotech on an A2? They both need goosenecks, does the aimpoint still need a mounting bracket? Do they both sit @ a good height or is the eotech too low? Thanks for the additional info Forest.
Top Top