Hello folks,

Because of all the differing opinions in the Aimpoint vs. Eotech debate, I decided to buy both and mount them on two different guns.  I bought the Aimpoint Comp M2 and an Eotech 552.  I mounted the Comp M2 with an ARMS 22M68 and cantilever spacer.  The Eotech mounted directly on the flatop.

After owning both and thoroughly familiarizing myself with both systems, I have come to the following conclusions:

For me, the Eotech has much faster sight acquisition, and is less distracting overall.  It's easy to keep both eyes open, and I have good situational awareness of my surroundings.

The Aimpoint has adequate sight acquisition, but is not as fast as the Eotech for me. Although I did have good situational awareness, I found myself always trying to use the Aimpoint as a conventional scope.  A couple of times I caught myself closing one eye and looking through the Aimpoint like a scope.  I had to remind myself not to do it.

Overall, I think the Eotech works better, but the big downfall of the Eotech is that it looks totally goofy to me.  It doesn't match the lines of the gun, and I do not like the way it sits on my rifle.  The Aimpoint on the other hand just looks like it belongs.  Maybe because it is scope shaped to begin with.  I much prefer the look of the Aimpoint.... To me, aesthetics play a huge part.  There is a reason why I like AR-style rifles.  I could easily have acquired several Ruger Mini-14s for the same price, but the design, feel and look play a big part in my book.

As much as I hate to admit it, I'll probably be shooting more often with my Aimpoint.  I'll be the first to admit the Eotech is a fine aiming system, but aesthetically, it displeases me and in a small way takes away from my shooting pleasure.

I suppose if it were a SHTF situation, I'd have to throw looks out the window, but in the meantime, I'm shooting for the fun of it.

Anyways, those are my thoughts so far.

Never used an Aimpoint, but I love my EOTech and would recommend it to anyone.  As for the looks, why are you concerned with looks if you think it works better?

Glock:

I told you why... Since I consider this aspect of shooting a "hobby" of sorts, I might as well go with what appeals to me aesthetically.

It's the same reason I drive a Corvette and not a Toyota, although both would get me from point A to point B in a satisfactory manner.

When I am in a SHTF situation, I will re-visit the aesthetics issue.  Meanwhile, I'll shoot what appeals to me.

Although I have yet to own an Aimpoint (I have a feeling I will someday soon though), I have to agree with you.

The Aimpoint looks "right" to me as well. It looks like it belongs on the rifle. Maybe I've just see so many of them on AR's I've just gotten used to seeing them together. On the other hand, the EO Tech looks kind of out of place, especially when mounted near the front end of an FF RAS.

And even thought I've never owned an Aimpoint, it seems to me that the circle/dot is quicker to pick up than just the dot. I recently bought a TA-31 ACOG and my eye doesn't pickup the TA-31's 4MOA donut reticle as easily as the EO Tech's circle/dot reticle.

All that being said, I consider the EO Tech to be primarily a CQB optic and the Aimpoint to be a short to medium range optic. I guess that's why it doesn't hurt to have both. [:)]

You will give in to Aimpoint [;)]

amen

sigh . . . [rolleyes]

Well I have a Acog with a optima 2000 on top of my Gov M4 and its great. I have the scope for long range and the red dot for CQB. The optima held up fine for the 7 months I spent in Afganistan hell im on the original battery!! and plus the Seals use optimas/pro points on their SPR's (mounted on top of their scope via weaver rail)the guys I talked to liked them.

FREE!  You're back?

I sold my aimpoint and switched exclusively to EO Techs. The aimpoint was ok but is old school technology and just didn't work well for me.

I'm not concerned w/ a sight "looking goofy"...only concerned with it being effective for my needs [;)]

Field of view----------------------Advantage EOTech
Battery Power----------------------Advantage Aimpoint
Non-Reflective Glass---------------Advantage EOTech
More available mounting solution---Advantage Aimpoint
Easier access to replacement batteries-Advantage EOTech
Cosmetics--------------------------Advantage Aimpoint
Non-Muzzle side signature----------Advantage EOTech
Better Co-Witness solution---------Advantage Aimpoint
Faster On target speed at CQB------Advantage EOTech
Brighter Reticle-------------------Advantage EOTech
More NV setting--------------------Advantage EOTech
Long distance precision shot-------Advantage EOTech

EOTech is the newer kid on the block, and the winner in the comparison, but for the old school or guys who needs long battery life, AImpoint has the clear advantage.

Can you co-witness your iron's thru the EO tech?

How about sturdiness, is it as tough as the aimpoint?

an inquiring mind would like to know.

Yes, you can mount directly to the receiver rail and have absolute co-witness.



An Operator dropped an MP5 with EOTEch on it from a helio at a height of 50ft, the sight survive a drop to the helio pad.

It has been used and abused by number of Spec Ops operators in the recent wars against terrorist.

Ther is more then 3000 EOTech is service with the Army and NAvy units, and also number of then with SAS and KSK.

REcent large DOJ M4 contract awarded to Rock River all spec the EOTech as standard equipped red dot optic.  

[blue]Yawn. . . did ya buy an AR for it's looks too?! Yeah, it's sexy. But it's sexy because of what it is and does rather than just "the look".

EOTech is overall the better unit.[/blue]

I've had both.  By far the biggest reason I prefer the Aimpoint is simplicity of controls.  I suppose RevE addresses this but my RevD flat buttons bug me and would be a pain to tweak under stress.  I put a little circle of skateboard tape on the up arrow--that helped low light manipulation a little.  Try it!  

I think other Aimpoint advantages are overblown.  Cool looks, battery life and the hooyah-groupie combat proven argument will fade as the Eotech stands the test of time.  If Eotech made a RevF with more solid mount and TOTALLY revamped control system (stick a darn wheel where the buttons are?), I'd probably go back.

By the way...  I worked with a group of EOD types overseas who all had Eotechs and loved them.  Everything these guys have goes swimming and gets abused.  If it had an NSN#, I think we'd see more of it in military use.

With that being said..AIMPOINT STILL RULES! [nana]

Excuse me..........please show me where either Lumpy196 or myself said anything about "looks".

oH........[SHOCK] YOU CAN'T?     Damn, maybe you need to read more carefully.

I did say that I liked the look of the Aimpoint better than the EO Tech but, when it comes to optics, it's not a beauty contest for me. I chose the optic that I felt would offer the best performance - the EO Tech.

I admit there are some things on AR's that don't look quite right to me (e.g. an 22M68 that uses a full height riser just looks awkward) but the bottom line to me is functionality...period, end of story.

I'd hate to see this become yet another Aimpoint vs EO Tech thread. Perhaps one of the mods (yes, Neil that means YOU) would be so kind as to tack that super long 7 page post we had going around 3-4 weeks ago on Aimpoint vs. EO Tech. It covered a lot of good points and might prevent any more "vs." threads from starting.

Chen hits the nail on the head every time - the EO Tech and Aimpoint are both very good optics and, in most cases, you can't go wrong with either one. If you can't decide which one you want, get both or flip a coin.

I choose the EoTech for the reasons listed above.  Don't be too hard on Lumpy, he's still learning[;)].

Can't go wrong with either.  Chances are if I had an Aimpoint, I'd be raving over that too.  For me, my favorite aspect is the 1 MOA dot.

[blue]Uh, excuse me. I didn't say either of you did. Please note the question mark (This is what they look like --> [size=6][b]?[/b][/size=6] <--) at the end of the sentence "Yawn. . . did ya buy an AR for it's looks too?!"

Yes SGB, that funny little squiggle over the period designates a question!

Seeing as how neither of you gave a any reasons as to why you thought it was better I was simply refering to BOB_LA's original post.

[rolleyes]

[/blue]

There's only two questions worth asking in my book:

Does it co-witness?

Is it mil-spec?

[hail] excuse me your holiness, pardon me my [s]lord[/s]..............what ever pal.[wave]

Didnt feel the need to rehash it
[url=http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=164971&w=searchPop]The Eotech v. Aimpoint Thread From Hell[/url]

lol...yeah no kidding

Did we beat that to death or what?? LOL

EITHER will serve you well...it comes down to personal preference.  And if looks is what decides for you, so be it.  Your gun is an investment and it SHOULD look good to you, as long as it does the job its intended.

Absolutely correct on every count.  I am with Lumpy on this.  

SGB = [:K]

Thank you for this Lumpy.  I guess my message got lost in the sauce somewhere.  I only speak for myself, but suspect others are in the same boat.

I have *way too many* rifles to consider every single one of them for strictly utilitarian purposes.  Darn right my guns should look good to me.  It's more than just "does it work?" Otherwise I'd just as soon buy myself a Ruger Mini-14 for a heck of a lot less money and be done with it.

Like it or not, many of us here collect black rifles and cherish them because they do look darn sexy to us.  Half the crap we put on our rifles boils down to aesthetics and not an actual need if you think about it.

My opening comment was that I liked the way Aimpoint looked a lot better on my gun, but I conceded the Eotech probably worked better for me.  But I'm the one who has to look at my rifle day in and day out.  I might as well like the way it looks.  

(I'm keeping the Eotech and putting it on a spare upper, by the way).

Here's my two cents...

I just got back from the range where I compared  a 552 I was going to buy from a buddy and a Comp M.  Both wre on flat top M4 style rifles, the Eotech on a 14.5" BM and the Aimpoint on a 16" Colt.

For me, the Aimpoint picks up quicker and is easier to track while traversing between targets.  The Eotech seems to work better while shooting on the move.  Using a PACT timer at 15 yards, 6 shots on 2 targets, I was faster with the Aimpoint.  Accuracy was about the same, although I did miss one head shot with the Eotech.

So, what this means is I am not buying the 552, but will  probably get another Aimpoint.  The Eotech was kind of interesting though, maybe I'll get both [;)]  

Chose another Aimpoint (M2) last time I got another dot sight.  Am definately interested in an Eotech but will wait a while to see if a new gen comes out.  That low-res raster reticle was not impressive to say the least.  They can do better!

Yawn....no as a matter of fact, my guns are tools not toys...go race a car.




YOU sir, have no idea how far off you are.  SGB is the farthest thing from a troll and has been there done that.  You probably could care less, so I have no need to press the point.


Bob_LA,  agree 100%.  At least you evaluated both for yourself.  If they both performed equally for you and you picked one based on looks, theres nothing wrong with that.  Everyone else can STFU.  Its your money.

Would like to see a 4 MOA center dot option for the Eotech as the 20 to 300 yard range we get to use has a nice mix of shade / woods / open and on ultra low contrast targets in complex poor light the dot of the Aimpoint stands out nicely (past 50 yards so the outside ring of the Eotech is getting a little large).

Have to agree this is a personel preference type issue and could only be decided by a Eotech vs Aimpoint shoot out in which case even with the 20+ to 1 ratio of Eotechs to Aimpoint, I am sure the Aimpoint shooters would win ... [:D]

That is unless all the ACOG guys picked off the targets early.

SGB may be a great guy and "been there done that".  I don't know 'cause I don't know him.  But his reply in this case was VERY troll like.  He had no need to be a condesending smart a$$.  The only reason to post what he posted in THAT message was to piss someone off.  Many of SGB's post are very informative and stick to the subject, just not this time.

That makes me a[shock] [b]PRICK[/b][shock] not a TROLL. And a PRICK I can be.....sorry to spoil you delusion.




By the way................WTF do you care?[BD]

I guess I don't REALLY care.  I just don't like pricks in general.  [stick]

Well now that we've established what we all are, lets avoid a

[img]http://www.altn.org/techtraining/lock.jpg[/img]

OK Lumpy, I'll play nice.  [beer]

Hold on guy's,the consensus is, and has been, that the EOtech offers faster target acquisition. Plain and simple. Nothing complex here.

The Aimpoint offers better durability overall and is a tougher sight overall. The facts speak for themselves. How many EOtechs do you see in combat conditions? How many Aimpoints do you see with US troops? Got it!

The stated "Aimpoints vs Eotech------My verdict so far......... is a good perspective. Lets move on. I feel a lock starting to close soon.

Just to clarify something here.  Lot of the members seem to think the Aimpoint is more durable, but the EOTech has been tested time after time in combat. matter of fact I have a picture of two EOTech which was return to EOTech after a long stay at the sand box we call Afghanstan to do an after action report.

Aimpoint has been in service since 1996, every EOTech you have seen used by the US forces are bought as an replacement to the Aimpoint.  Currently there is thousands of EOTech in service with some of the best this country has to offer nad they go in the harms way with an EOTech.  

I always always tell everyone, no matter which optic you buy, you will end up with the best this indusrty has to offer.  Aimpoint or EOTech, when youare life are at stake, you should deserve nothing less.

Too late!!

yyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn