Posted: 12/13/2015 7:25:11 PM EDT
| Don't want to start another recall thread. I have an exp 3 about 1 yr old on my duty weapon, I like it and have had no problems. Should I be concerned? Stays in climate controlled environment most the time. |
|
I really liked my EoTech.
But I live in Wisconsin. You think it's you, If you don't shoot that carbine all the time. Take it in July, next time in February. Seems to be off, must be this lot of ammo. No, it is probably me. Then you find out, they knew there was a defect. And you also paid a lot of money in 2007, for the newest technology. I have no problem sending it back for a refund. |
| Return it. I have (not for long) an exps3 that had worked flawlessly forever and now all of a sudden 1/4 of my reticle is dim, it's not parallax free, and it fogs up like a mothertrucker. Theres no point in keeping an optic you really can't trust. Not on a rifle you depend on. Mine will get replaced with an aimpoint t-2. |
|
Quoted:
Don't want to start another recall thread. I have an exp 3 about 1 yr old on my duty weapon, I like it and have had no problems. Should I be concerned? Stays in climate controlled environment most the time. Return your sight. Especially if you are LEO. Almost a no brainier and your agency may make you once they learn the sights are all bad. Ours called all of them in for refunds. No sense in you keeping an expensive sight that Eotech already CONFIRMED is defective. What reason would you want to keep the thing? It works great now? So does a UTG/Leapers until it craps out. |
|
I'm having a hard time figuring out the extent of the problem, failed seals aside.
The court filing looks to have misrepresented the parallax issue. From the engineering quotes, it looks like they are talking about parallax at some min/spec distance, but the court filing keeps converting MOA to inches-at-100-yards, which is technically incorrect for these types of HWSs. The parallax error diminished as the target distance increases. The court filing torturously avoids the mention of the specification distances for zero or some spec parallax error - they quote all around it, but omit the parts where the engineers discuss the testing distances. I know that there is no duty to put exculpatory evidence in a civil filing, but even then, these omissions are bothersome; converting MOA at 30 meters, or 50 yards, to inches-at-100-yards is either a gross technical oversight, or the petitioner is trying to stretch the truth to bring L3 to a settlement. After reading the filing, I believe the parallax problem is much less than commonly believed. |
| Agencies around here are banning EOTech now due to the problems so it's made the decision for officers who had thought about continuing to use one on their rifle. But... the other thing to consider is legal issues. Don't put yourself in a pickle where a shooting goes bad and the attorney can hammer you for using an optic with known issues. |