Eotech 553 pics - Page 2

AR-15 » Optics, Mounts, and Sights

AR Sponsor:

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Eotech 553 pics (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 10/6/2005 4:06:19 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

You know this ARMS vs LaRue vs GG&G vs blah blah is like FORD, GM, CHRYSLER its to eachs own.

Ant

No, LaRue is really that much better.
So I guess spec ops doesnt know what they are taking about. Shit I mean they only have to trust there life to this optic what the hell do they know. I am a fan of LT but to say spec ops are full of idoits who dont know what they need is ignorant.

The Operators of SOCOM have LITTLE input when it comes to selecting gear. It is a 100% political game which commonly leaves the operators without the best gear.

Outside SOCOM's you will find groups that can pick and choose the gear they want. Those top tier organizations are running LT products.

I work as a GOVT contractor for the USAF. I commonly review and dictate where money goes. So I see this type of BS going on around me all the time (Big companies trying to pull strings to get their product in the door).

C4

Posted: 10/6/2005 4:12:55 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

You know this ARMS vs LaRue vs GG&G vs blah blah is like FORD, GM, CHRYSLER its to eachs own.

Ant

No, LaRue is really that much better.
So I guess spec ops doesnt know what they are taking about. Shit I mean they only have to trust there life to this optic what the hell do they know. I am a fan of LT but to say spec ops are full of idoits who dont know what they need is ignorant.

The Operators of SOCOM have LITTLE input when it comes to selecting gear. It is a 100% political game which commonly leaves the operators without the best gear.

Outside SOCOM's you will find groups that can pick and choose the gear they want. Those top tier organizations are running LT products.

I work as a GOVT contractor for the USAF. I commonly review and dictate where money goes. So I am VERY familiar with the game and how it is played. he

C4

I know the guys dont get a lot of say in what they they get but it sounds to me like a lot of people are condeming this sight as a death trap because of the ARMS throw lever mounts. I ran an M2 with the old M68 throw lever mount in Afghanistan on my issue standard M4 and never had a problem with lose of zero or loosening of the mount. Even after repeated switching with a TA01 NSN scope. Today all my personal weapons have LT mounts. To condem a piece of operator equipment due to its proven throw lever mount is silly.

Posted: 10/6/2005 4:16:21 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

You know this ARMS vs LaRue vs GG&G vs blah blah is like FORD, GM, CHRYSLER its to eachs own.

Ant

No, LaRue is really that much better.
So I guess spec ops doesnt know what they are taking about. Shit I mean they only have to trust there life to this optic what the hell do they know. I am a fan of LT but to say spec ops are full of idoits who dont know what they need is ignorant.

The Operators of SOCOM have LITTLE input when it comes to selecting gear. It is a 100% political game which commonly leaves the operators without the best gear.

Outside SOCOM's you will find groups that can pick and choose the gear they want. Those top tier organizations are running LT products.

I work as a GOVT contractor for the USAF. I commonly review and dictate where money goes. So I am VERY familiar with the game and how it is played. I know the guys dont get a lot of say in what they get but it sounds to me like a lot of people are condeming this sight as a death trap because of the ARMS equipment attached. I ran a M2 with the Old M68 throw lever mount in afghanistan on my issue regular M4 and never had a problem with lose of zero even after repeatedly switching it out with a TA01 NSN. Today all of my personal weapons have LT mounts. To condem a piece of operator equipment as shitty because of the mount is kind of stupid.

C4

I don't think anyone is condemning the 553 (Lord knows that I will stock them), but some members would prefer it to have either no raised mount and or a mount that didn't feature the ARMS throw levers. I also have an issue with how the lever are tucked under the mount (making them hard to get access).

C4

Posted: 10/6/2005 4:20:12 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

You know this ARMS vs LaRue vs GG&G vs blah blah is like FORD, GM, CHRYSLER its to eachs own.

Ant

No, LaRue is really that much better.
So I guess spec ops doesnt know what they are taking about. Shit I mean they only have to trust there life to this optic what the hell do they know. I am a fan of LT but to say spec ops are full of idoits who dont know what they need is ignorant.

The Operators of SOCOM have LITTLE input when it comes to selecting gear. It is a 100% political game which commonly leaves the operators without the best gear.

Outside SOCOM's you will find groups that can pick and choose the gear they want. Those top tier organizations are running LT products.

I work as a GOVT contractor for the USAF. I commonly review and dictate where money goes. So I am VERY familiar with the game and how it is played. he

C4

I don't think anyone is condemning the 553 (Lord knows that I will stock them), but some members would prefer it to have either no raised mount and or a mount that didn't feature the ARMS throw levers.

C4

Buy the way my friend in the NG thanks you for the Magnifier + m3 you sold him. I hope it makes a difference were he is going.

Posted: 10/6/2005 4:22:01 PM EDT

[#5]

]Buy the way my friend in the NG thanks you for the Magnifier + m3 you sold him. I hope it makes a difference were he is going.

Great! Maybe he will make me proud with it!

C4

Posted: 10/6/2005 5:25:02 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

The Operators of SOCOM have LITTLE input when it comes to selecting gear. It is a 100% political game which commonly leaves the operators without the best gear.

Outside SOCOM's you will find groups that can pick and choose the gear they want. Those top tier organizations are running LT products.

I work as a GOVT contractor for the USAF. I commonly review and dictate where money goes. So I see this type of BS going on around me all the time (Big companies trying to pull strings to get their product in the door).

C4

+1

The military procurement process does not favor of the Warfighter. SOCOM has little, or no pull when it comes to getting what they ask for. Politics, constituents, and bureaucracy rule. Big OEMs have severe lobbying power that gets results.

It's funny, the 553 was probably redesigned by someone who never fired a weapon. His focus was most likely on schedule, budget, and lastly, performance...not function...not, common-sense usability or even packablity. He probably does not know what the hell a "picatinny rail" is. I've witnessed it hundreds of times. Someone told him to use an ARMS mount...that, you can be sure about.

While demonstrating hardware to a SEAL Team in SanDiego, the first question they asked was "does it take common batteries, like 9v & AA's"....I chuckled, while our program manager explained that it takes a proprietary battery. They asked me "why is it so damn hard to create hardware with common consumables available at radioshack...or TaliMart"... It was dictated to us to use the battery system we had...probably payback on someone's promotion...who knows?.

Operators find themselves at gunshows and machine shops, making do, and I don't blame them.

Requirements are passed up from the Operator get lost, just like the grade-school game where everyone stands in a circle and whispers the "same" message to next guy...by the time it gets to the last person....the message is waay different.

I'm close enough to a few programs to make them better.

Posted: 10/6/2005 5:28:51 PM EDT

[#7]

Well....this is a start for Eotech! Since the begining they have continued to update their Optics with Revisions. So we could possibly, assume that they will improve on this over time. Hell they could do their Run for SOCOM and then change over to LaRue....We also need to remember that they were recently bought and in due time we will see changes from that.

Quoted:
From looking at the pics, can anyone tell me how they are going to open the levers with gloves on?

C4

What about a Spent casing, or a live round? It looks like that might work, also could it be possible that the military requested it to look like this?

Ant

Posted: 10/6/2005 6:00:41 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Well....this is a start for Eotech! Since the begining they have continued to update their Optics with Revisions. So we could possibly, assume that they will improve on this over time. Hell they could do their Run for SOCOM and then change over to LaRue....We also need to remember that they were recently bought and in due time we will see changes from that.

Quoted:
From looking at the pics, can anyone tell me how they are going to open the levers with gloves on?

C4

What about a Spent casing, or a live round? It looks like that might work, also could it be possible that the military requested it to look like this?

Ant

Can someone make it work? Sure can. Is the 553 going in the right direction? Sure is. Does it have some issues? Yep!

I love the fact that they are using the CR123A batts, I like the color, retention strap and that they raised it to what I feel is the correct height.

C4

Posted: 10/6/2005 6:20:43 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Well....this is a start for Eotech! Since the begining they have continued to update their Optics with Revisions. So we could possibly, assume that they will improve on this over time. Hell they could do their Run for SOCOM and then change over to LaRue....We also need to remember that they were recently bought and in due time we will see changes from that.

Quoted:
From looking at the pics, can anyone tell me how they are going to open the levers with gloves on?

C4

What about a Spent casing, or a live round? It looks like that might work, also could it be possible that the military requested it to look like this?

Ant

They'll probably use paracord loops (SOP)

Posted: 10/6/2005 6:25:23 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
.......While demonstrating hardware to a SEAL Team in SanDiego, the first question they asked was "does it take common batteries, like 9v & AA's"....I chuckled, while our program manager explained that it takes a proprietary battery. They asked me "why is it so damn hard to create hardware with common consumables available at radioshack...or TaliMart"... It was dictated to us to use the battery system we had...probably payback on someone's promotion...who knows?....

With all due respect I laugh everytime I read this argument. I am a prospective Aimpoint buyer who likes where Eotech is going but will likely go ML3/LT mount in the very near futue. I just don't understand the argument for the AA feature.

Does the Wal Mart on Roberts Ridge not carry anything but AAs. In fact....in the field you have what you bring.....so....

Option A: 6-10 AAs for my optic that has a 1k hour batt life per pair

or

Option B: 2 watch size batteries (able to be stored INSIDE the optic knob) with 50k hours of life each

WTF?!?!? How is this a hard decision? Why are AAs any more convenient than anything else unless you are an armchair commando clearing your house and scaring the wife and kids? Logistically it truly comes down to preference. Hell, I won't even try to argue the 50k batt is better.....

Is carrying one battery in the field harder than another?
Is stocking up on them hard to do pre-deployment?

I enjoy reading spirited discussions about facts/opinions etc but damn.....let the battery thing go......

Posted: 10/6/2005 6:26:56 PM EDT

[#11]

are they still gonna sell the older models?

Posted: 10/6/2005 6:27:38 PM EDT

[#12]

Sorry. I like tucked-in levers. Had a GGG throw lever for a 6015 get caught on my vest when I slung my rifle on my back to get on top of a building. Took a while to get it unstuck while trying to stay low on a roof with a BG too close for comfort. I shy away from levers that stick out too far for "convenience," and will take something that's a little harder to remove (which I see as a non-issue anyway) if it's less likely to hang up.

Posted: 10/6/2005 6:28:18 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:

EOTech tried to push for the LaRue or a interanl system, but the ARMS throwlever was spec'd by SOCOM specifically.

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark on the Gucci gear crowd.

Posted: 10/6/2005 6:32:21 PM EDT

[#14]

I wonder why the levers don't both point forward (but still tucked in)?
That way looks like you could then push it over the HG's a little bit...

I also wonder why they never extended the sides of the hood to protect the battery cover.
(obviously still clearing the throw lever!)

* I must add I've never really used an EO, just played with it in the fun-shop.

Posted: 10/6/2005 6:49:40 PM EDT

[#15]

very nice

Posted: 10/6/2005 6:55:37 PM EDT

[#16]

WOW this post got big quick!

www.csgunworks.com
[email protected]

Here’s some testimonials about CS GunWorks for AR15 Board
What do YOU have to say about CS GunWorks

Posted: 10/6/2005 7:33:04 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

To condem a piece of operator equipment due to its proven throw lever mount is silly.

Who condemned them? I just said that the LaRue is superior.

You've used both - you should know.

The engineer in me gives me a little different look at a product than a ground pounder, FWIW

Posted: 10/6/2005 7:48:44 PM EDT

[#18]

As far as the batteries go, I read somewhere that the CR123 batteries were the standard battery for all the sopmod II items.

Jason

Posted: 10/6/2005 7:53:30 PM EDT

[#19]

I think 123 batteries make a lot of sense for the military, but for many of us civilians, I like AA.

With AA I can use:

- AA alkaline

- AA rechargables (think solar charger, think long term SHTF)

- AA lithium (higher power, low temp capability, light weight)

I get more benefits, just a bit less power density than 123's.

Surefires need the 123 for the high current capability, Eotechs don't.

I don't have a resupply chain, besides commercial sources

That's my rational.

Posted: 10/6/2005 9:04:11 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
The engineer in me gives me a little different look at a product than a ground pounder, FWIW

Hahahahahahahaha...isn't that exactly what this thread is going towards??? ENGINEERS dictating what GROUND POUNDERS need, since their mathematically inclined minds know exactly what the guys in the mud expereince and need...there's a set of formulas for that right?

I, however, have no knowledge of your own personal "boots on the ground" experience if any. Maybe you have both field and engineering experience, in which case I think that your comment holds a lot more water, if not however, I think it's a perfect example of the problems the people actually using these products face.

Posted: 10/6/2005 9:11:47 PM EDT

[#21]

OMG! Everybody run! Someone here has an opinion!!

Posted: 10/6/2005 9:29:48 PM EDT

[#22]

.

Posted: 10/6/2005 9:35:16 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
OMG! Everybody run! Someone here has an opinion!!

hr

Yes, my opinion is that thing sits too high, has teh wrong batteries and is ugly!

I´m glad, i bought a 552 two weeks ago and don´t wait longer for this EObrick.

Posted: 10/6/2005 11:16:07 PM EDT

[#24]

No, no!
That's a good thing!

Posted: 10/6/2005 11:27:34 PM EDT

[#25]

What freakin color is that thing supposed to be? I thought it was supposed to be flat earth, but on my screen here, it looks more OD than anything, maybe a little gray even. Certainly off from the other "Tans" on the model rifle, and certainly not what most flat earth's look like. Just me or does it look like that to everyone. My monitor is generally spot on with colors. What was wrong with black anyways? Looks like the hood is still black. I like the rest of it alot.I'll like it more when I see a pic of it with the eo magnifyer behind it. I guess when someone spills the beans on price, i'll see if i like it "enough"

Posted: 10/7/2005 2:42:50 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The engineer in me gives me a little different look at a product than a ground pounder, FWIW

Hahahahahahahaha...isn't that exactly what this thread is going towards??? ENGINEERS dictating what GROUND POUNDERS need, since their mathematically inclined minds know exactly what the guys in the mud expereince and need...there's a set of formulas for that right?

I, however, have no knowledge of your own personal "boots on the ground" experience if any. Maybe you have both field and engineering experience, in which case I think that your comment holds a lot more water, if not however, I think it's a perfect example of the problems the people actually using these products face.

Well, it's not like I just shoot off the bench at the range.

While I don't have combat experience, I do USE my tools.

I think the engineer in me allows for a more analytical look at how & why a product is designed like it is.

Posted: 10/7/2005 3:35:10 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
What freakin color is that thing supposed to be? I thought it was supposed to be flat earth, but on my screen here, it looks more OD than anything, maybe a little gray even. Certainly off from the other "Tans" on the model rifle, and certainly not what most flat earth's look like. Just me or does it look like that to everyone. My monitor is generally spot on with colors. What was wrong with black anyways? Looks like the hood is still black. I like the rest of it alot.I'll like it more when I see a pic of it with the eo magnifyer behind it. I guess when someone spills the beans on price, i'll see if i like it "enough"

Its the SOCOM Earth color (might want to look for a new monitor). I think I would KG coat the hood in the color so everything would match (just did this for a customer). Looks pretty good.

C4

Posted: 10/7/2005 4:40:29 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
...looks like one of Frankenstein's boots.

(and I'm an EoTech fan)

hr

That´s a good comparison!!!

Posted: 10/7/2005 4:47:48 AM EDT

[#29]

It looks like somebody put some effort into creating a unit that doesn't require purchasing a bunch of add-ons (ie., throwlevers and elevated mounts to make it user friendly). The battery change makes sense as well. Eotech hasn't done anything but improve with each model they've turned out.

(Patiently waiting for February to get here so I can get a good deal on a used 552 in the EE)

Posted: 10/7/2005 6:41:05 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

It's funny, the 553 was probably redesigned by someone who never fired a weapon. His focus was most likely on schedule, budget, and lastly, performance...not function...not, common-sense usability or even packablity. He probably does not know what the hell a "picatinny rail" is. I've witnessed it hundreds of times. Someone told him to use an ARMS mount...that, you can be sure about.

**EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION**

CRANE (USSOCOM) commissioned the redesign of the sight. They hand picked the changes they wanted. Any particular vendor's item or additional item incorporated into the product was their decision to make the changes, NOT TO USE a particular vendor. The sight design changes were driven by Operational Test results. The design changes came from 10th Special Forces, Ranger, and SEAL Special Operators who worked with the previous Holosights over several years in combat, and then participated in a one-month formal live-fire test. Of the design changes they made, which included throw-lever mounts, USSOCOM and Crane did not specify which subcontractors Eotech would use. Those choices were internal business decisions at Eotech. The individuals who run that institution probably have fired a weapon before, as well. Just a guess.

I apolgize if my language before implied that CRANE selected a specific vendor over another. They did not.

Also, there has been no decision to release this product to the civilian marketplace. Currently, the only customer is USSOCOM. The sights have already been contracted by and for them alone.

Posted: 10/7/2005 8:41:46 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:

It's funny, the 553 was probably redesigned by someone who never fired a weapon. His focus was most likely on schedule, budget, and lastly, performance...not function...not, common-sense usability or even packablity. He probably does not know what the hell a "picatinny rail" is. I've witnessed it hundreds of times. Someone told him to use an ARMS mount...that, you can be sure about.

CRANE (USSOCOM) commissioned and designed the sight. They hand picked the changes they wanted. Any particular vendor or additional item incorporated into the product was their decision. The individuals who run that institution probably have fired a weapon before. Just a guess.

Also, there has been no decision to release this product to the civilian marketplace. Currently, the only customer is USSOCOM. The sights have already been contracted by and for them alone.

well said.

Besides, it is only a prototype picture... don't get too excited about it yet...

Posted: 10/7/2005 9:14:30 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I want one for my XCR or L-W hr

Wait till you hear the price... hr

Price! It's only money!

Posted: 10/7/2005 9:42:37 AM EDT

[#33]

Looks like I will be sticking with my 552 and LT Mount.

Posted: 10/7/2005 2:19:52 PM EDT

[#34]

Well shit, I guess I'll be the only one to say I like it. I'll more than likely buy one if they release a non nv version and it's not too much over 4 bills. Really like they are finally going with CR123's.

Posted: 10/7/2005 4:39:00 PM EDT

[#35]

Here are some additional specs on the 553:

* Raised base is 7mm or ¼ “ higher than standard and still will allow witnessing of sights, including fold-down front sights if they are at mil spec height.
* Runs on 2 CR 123 batteries per NSWC spec; run time estimated at same as AA (600 hrs) to be qualified in time.
* Length is 5/8” shorter than AA unit; closer to M511/551 unit.

C4

Posted: 10/7/2005 7:10:05 PM EDT

[#36]

Tag

Posted: 10/7/2005 7:39:17 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Understand that operators do not change out optics while engaged in a mission, but the point was that the levers are so far under the mount that you will need a tool (or small fingers) to open them.

Looks like a cartridge could handle it. And I bet good money that troops in the field are more concerned with optics coming off too easily, rather than not easily enough.

Posted: 10/8/2005 5:13:28 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Understand that operators do not change out optics while engaged in a mission, but the point was that the levers are so far under the mount that you will need a tool (or small fingers) to open them.

Looks like a cartridge could handle it. And I bet good money that troops in the field are more concerned with optics coming off too easily, rather than not easily enough.

You are correct, but they still want to remove an optic without any tools.

C4

Posted: 10/8/2005 6:09:59 AM EDT

[#39]

And yet....after all the hoopla..... I'll still be using my ML2 which has been on the same battery since 03......

Don't see what the big whoop is. for the majority of the crowd, you will stick with your AA version. I see a sight with new batteries and an ARMS mount.

so if it fits your needs, you'll get it, if not...

Posted: 10/8/2005 7:41:52 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Tag

You orig. posted this: A word to the wise... don't believe everything you read on the internet.

I was wondering what you were referring too?

C4

Posted: 10/8/2005 1:49:14 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
I am a fan of LT but to say spec ops are full of idoits who dont know what they need is ignorant.

When did anyone say that?

Posted: 10/9/2005 3:22:20 PM EDT

[#42]

Skinny on the 553:

USSOCOM liked the 552, but required EOTech make some changes to the existing product to fullfill the contract specs.

1. USSOCOM want all their gear to run on CR123 (radios, nv, thermal, lasers, etc.) for a common battery source.
2. The 553 is shorter than the 552, longer than the 551.
3. Run time should be 1100 hours on two CR123.
4. Cost should not be a whole lot higher than a 552 + LT mount.
5. The two-tone color was approved by CRANE - the contracting authority. Combination OD body and Brown anodized hood.
6. The ARMS levers were a requirement. They are "tucked in" to prevent snagging on gear (slings, molle, bdus, etc.)
7. EOTech employs a number of shooters - some with military background, not just techie engineers.

-Manx

Posted: 10/10/2005 4:31:30 PM EDT

[#43]

I like it, but I will not be selling my 552 an time soon. I will wait till the new wears off.

Posted: 10/10/2005 6:03:23 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
I like it, but I will not be selling my 552 an time soon. I will wait till the new wears off.

Don't get caught up in the new-product-must-buy zombie syndrome.

WIZZO

Posted: 10/10/2005 6:20:05 PM EDT

[#45]

Look another EOThingy. Man they make some really ugly products. To bad they did not use a LT mount.

Posted: 10/10/2005 7:58:02 PM EDT

[#46]

To add to the things that I wish they had done with this, is to add a second control pad inset in to the protective hood on the top.

Oh well, will still pick one of these up if they release them for general sales. It will be nice to only need to keep one battery type around for my duty rifle and flashlights.

Jason

Posted: 11/3/2005 3:02:06 PM EDT

[#47]

well, i'm thinking about buying a new 552 in the next few weeks and if i like the 553 enough when it comes out, i will sale you the 552 for a reasonable price. sound like a deal? i contacted EO the other day and they are not exactly sure when the 553 will be available. John said that he should have more info closer to the "SHOT" show, i think its in febuary. he also stated the magnifier has been put on the back burner until the 553 has been debuted. i wlll try and copy the emails that he sent and post them on ar15.com.

Posted: 11/3/2005 8:22:08 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Yes, my opinion is that thing sits too high, has teh wrong batteries and is ugly!

Agreed on the sitting too high!

All of these guys who like their irons sights in the bottom third of the scope's view are just so wrong! Almost as wrong as being left-handed!

Seriously ... that's something that appealed to me about the current EOTechs ... when you slap them on the flat top, the irons are right in the middle (where I like 'em). I suppose I'm some kind of freak because I haven't had any trouble with the original screw/mount. I also only have the revision "E," and all the k00l kIDz know only revision "F" is any good at all.