Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 10/6/2005 6:30:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/7/2005 3:18:26 PM EDT by Kevin]
New pic of the Eotech....NO pricing or Deliver Date.


Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:32:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 6:44:05 AM EDT by Bigant]

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:43:14 AM EDT
Very nice. I'm glad they got away from the screw mount, that was my one big complaint!

Is the model you pictured still AA? It's a bit decieving because they've expanded the hood shroud too.

I definitely think one of these could go on my duty rifle...

Doc
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:45:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoctorNo:
Very nice. I'm glad they got away from the screw mount, that was my one big complaint!

Is the model you pictured still AA? It's a bit decieving because they've expanded the hood shroud too.

I definitely think one of these could go on my duty rifle...

Doc



No its CR 123



Ant
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 8:11:04 AM EDT
Cool.

Can we get a pic of the rest of that rifle?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 8:19:32 AM EDT
Is it a 510 series with throw levers? Or are they offering a 550 series (NV compatible) with throw levers?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 8:45:52 AM EDT
How much higher does this one sit?
Can you still co-witness with the troy BUIS? If so, is it a lower 1/3? If not, WTF!?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 8:57:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 9:07:57 AM EDT by USCG_Always_Ready]
It seems a bit longer than the AA model. Or is it just mounted farther forward on the rail? Could you take a complete side profile pic?

I would hate to have to use only a Troy tube so the front arms mount had something to lock onto.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:04:09 AM EDT
I don't know for sure but I think it is actually a little shorter than the 552, the pic seems to suggest that it is mounted farther forward.

Any idea if they will all be 2-tone like that?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:07:18 AM EDT
That is supposed to be for a socom contract so it should be nv compatible. Hmm, it dont look like you are going to be able to change the mount on that, also I thought that it was supposed to be the lenght of a 551 series.

Jason
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:49:45 AM EDT
It looks great, but I've heard the price is going to be outrageous compared to a 552/551 w/LaRue mount.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:59:57 AM EDT
.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:01:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 10:03:26 AM EDT by CSGunWorkscom]
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:07:00 AM EDT
Spoke with the rep from EOTech at the Modern Day Marine expo at Quantico.

It will hit the street in February AT THE EARLIEST.

Its integral mount casues it to sit higher so your sights are in the lower 1/3 (which is a bummer for guys like me who want to use it on a rifle with a folding front sight). You will NOT be able to swap out the mount and put on the GG&G mount that makes it "flush", or lower than the current model.

I'll wait to see the price. If it isn't too expensive I'll go with it. If it is crazy, then I'll get the 552 model that takes the AA batteries and put the GG&G mount that I wanted anyway, so it sits lower.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:46:48 AM EDT
I will never buy this as long as it uses ARMS style throw levers. I have enough uppers that interchangability requires LaRue-type adjustable levers.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:47:34 AM EDT
Damn!

IIRC, the 552/512 will still have a longer run time.

I also really wished they would have went with a single lever LaRue mount.

Though the CR123 batteries and raised mount are nice I don't know if the increased price, nearly double from the rumors I've heard, will be worth it for me to switch from my 552.

Hopefully the 552 will not cost as much when it gets upgraded this revision.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:01:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 11:02:43 AM EDT by SMGLee]

Originally Posted By Zak-Smith:
I will never buy this as long as it uses ARMS style throw levers. I have enough uppers that interchangability requires LaRue-type adjustable levers.



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

CR123 batteries

it sits about 3/8" higher, much like a build in LaRue mount.

differenet electronics and black out internals

Price will be higher then a 552 plus LaRue combo...



Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:40:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SMGLee:
]

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




Oh well, I guess you gotta do what Uncle Sugar says since he's the primary customer...
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:48:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SMGLee:

Originally Posted By Zak-Smith:
I will never buy this as long as it uses ARMS style throw levers. I have enough uppers that interchangability requires LaRue-type adjustable levers.



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

CR123 batteries

it sits about 3/8" higher, much like a build in LaRue mount.

differenet electronics and black out internals

Price will be higher then a 552 plus LaRue combo...






NOT FOR ME

Well money talks and BS walks....if someone is going to pay you big $$$$ to make the optic a certain way then you'll comply. Heck majority of the LEO/MIL types will by this even though it has the ARMS throw levers.

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

Ant
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:42:48 PM EDT
Looks bigger,

Looks heavier,

And sure it looks more pricy with 2 ARMS mounts.

humm.....
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:46:58 PM EDT
SMGLee, or anyone else know if LaRue will be able to make a replacement mount the way this thing is put together?

Jason
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:52:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:56:10 PM EDT
...looks like one of Frankenstein's boots.

(and I'm an EoTech fan)


Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:01:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:06:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:15:54 PM EDT
Run time! what is the damn run time?



I can't believe I'm the first to ask this.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:16:16 PM EDT
SOCOM: Gloves! Damn the logic!

EVERYONE: Sell it to us for cheap.

SOCOM: Okay, we'll just have EOTech REV it for us

EVERYONE: Suckers!

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:16:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:
From looking at the pics, can anyone tell me how they are going to open the levers with gloves on?


C4



well, not going to be taking optics on and off too much under conditions.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:17:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 1:17:42 PM EDT by SMGLee]

Originally Posted By MudBug:
Run time! what is the damn run time?



I can't believe I'm the first to ask this.



Around and close to 1000 hours
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:18:23 PM EDT
I want one for my XCR or L-W
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:36:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jlford30:
I want one for my XCR or L-W



Wait till you hear the price...
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:48:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:51:41 PM EDT
Increased price+more expensive batteries (in comparison to the AA's)+no option for it to sit lower+less run time than AA's+you guys say it will cost more than a 552 and LT mount=Me getting another 512 or getting a 552 instead of this.

With the front ARMS mount out that far, I doubt you'll be able to hang the front off over the HG anymore. Hope it's small enough now

And I'm a big EOTech fan.........

WIZZO
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:55:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:00:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

You won't be able to hang the nose of the EOTech over the HG's like you can with the LT EOTech mount. The 553 is NOT that much shorter than the 512/552.



C4



Another strike against the 553...
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:03:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Yojimbo:

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

You won't be able to hang the nose of the EOTech over the HG's like you can with the LT EOTech mount. The 553 is NOT that much shorter than the 512/552.



C4



Another strike against the 553...



Yep, damnit
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:11:54 PM EDT
tag.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:13:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

Originally Posted By SMGLee:

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:
From looking at the pics, can anyone tell me how they are going to open the levers with gloves on?


C4



well, not going to be taking optics on and off too much under conditions.



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.


C4



true...
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:15:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Yojimbo:

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

You won't be able to hang the nose of the EOTech over the HG's like you can with the LT EOTech mount. The 553 is NOT that much shorter than the 512/552.



C4



Another strike against the 553...



think continuous rail like the MRP, URX or the "SCAR".....this is the wave of the future and the direction the military is heading... not really a problem in their mind.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:45:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 2:46:15 PM EDT by C4iGrant]
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:49:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 2:50:22 PM EDT by WIZZO_ARAKM14]
I would also think that there could be some problems, depending on how a BUIS mounts and how many slots it takes up, with having enough room period, not just for turning it on, but for being able to mount it in the first place.

Personally speaking, I think they could have done a little better, but what do I know?

WIZZO
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:53:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:54:06 PM EDT
the size of that thing is not that much bigger then the shorter 551 so it is not that big of a problem like it was with the 552 with the long AA batteries.

It is a excellent unit with much improved design.. by the way, rest of the EOTech will continue to be produced....
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:22:11 PM EDT
Hi guys, Any idea what is the weight? lighter or heavier than 552? Thanks
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:25:57 PM EDT
Heavier the a std 552. due to the raised base and two throw lever.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:32:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 3:35:46 PM EDT by bigkracka]

Originally Posted By SMGLee:

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.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:52:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bigant:


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.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:54:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:55:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SMGLee:
the size of that thing is not that much bigger then the shorter 551 so it is not that big of a problem like it was with the 552 with the long AA batteries.

It is a excellent unit with much improved design.. by the way, rest of the EOTech will continue to be produced....



My mistake. It just sounded like people were saying it was about the same size as the 512/552. I was thinking that could be a problem with the dual ARMS mounts.

Thanks for correcting me.

WIZZO
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:56:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By Bigant:


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.



I was disappointed with that decision too.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 4:00:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By Bigant:


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.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top