Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/16/2006 3:30:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/16/2006 3:38:58 AM EDT by 7KOPPER]


Not sure if this has been brought up or not.....Due to the ARMS lever set up on this, it is not possible to co-witness (not the way you could in the older models). The height of the unit is about 1/2 of an inch taller than the existing units. You WILL NOT get a good cheek weld and sight pic without a stock riser. When I brought this up to their staff the fella said he did not realize this until I brought it up to him??? Sort of hard to believe. He said he would tell "someone" about this. I like the CR 123 idea, but not sure that the ARMS levers are a necessity. BTW I own three EOTech's.

What's yer thought's?

edit...co-witness in possible with BUIS in the bottom 1/4 inch of the window.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 5:11:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/16/2006 5:23:46 AM EDT by Onslaught]
It doesn't co-witness to your preference perhaps, but from what I understand, it does co-witness.

According to Chen Lee, it actually is BETTER than the regular EOTech for those who feel they need a riser mount like LaRue, and a stock riser won't be necessary for most folks.

FWIW, I think he said it was more like .250" or .300" rather than .500"

But thanks for the info either way, it's still good to know.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 5:35:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 9:30:58 AM EDT
Yeah, it won't be an absolute co-witness, but noone that can afford a LaRue or other riser wants an absolute co-witness anyway.

The CR123 batteries are a plus and so is *I think* the ARMS levers.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 2:05:06 PM EDT
Don't mean to nit pick here, just an observation. I never understood why folks put risers on their EOTechs in the first place, unless you have a huge cheek, proper cheek weld can never be obtained with a standard stock, JMO. Whenever I try out a new red dot or any sighting system I close my eyes, get the rifle on my face where it feels comfortable and open my eyes. When I did this on the 553 I was looking at the buttons. After lifting my face off of the buffer tube a little I began to see the reticle in the bottom of the window. Flipped up the BUIS and was able to get a co-witness in the VERY bottom of the window. Again, in order to co-witness my face was off of the buffer tube abd was not a comfortable position. Some guys shoot with no cheek weld, seen it a hundred times. Just not the way I was trained.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 3:20:39 PM EDT
I prefer the EoTech (552) to be mounted directly on a flattop upper too. As for the CR123's, the brosure I got today says the battery life on the 553 is 1100 hours, only a 100 hour improvement over the 552 with lithium AA's. I'm sure it'll add battery commonality for some folks though. I do think the throw levers will be a big improvement over the 552's thumb screw.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 3:56:51 PM EDT
Not to hijack this thread, but do they plan to make a non-military version that takes the CR123s?

Maybe like a Eotech 513 (which would be like what the non-military 512 is to the 552, and the non-military 511 is to the 551).

I don't need it to be NV compatable or waterproof to 33 feet, so I don't want to pay for that technology.

I sure would like to use the 123 batteries though, so I have compatibility with my lights.

Anyone hear anything?

Thanks!
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 4:40:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 5:06:57 PM EDT
I would definitely want to know if there is "513" in the future...!
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 5:29:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 6:15:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mcgrubbs:
Did any of you guys actually put hands on this at SHOT? I did and found it to be very sloppy and loose. It slid forward and aft on the rail with little force. Frankly I don't know what they were thiking puttin git on display at SHOT like that.



We had one on one of our rifles. It had no slop in it. The EOTech rep said all of the 553's on display are prototypes.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 6:17:53 PM EDT
I can only imagine that being a fluke but you are right........why display it!

Haven't heard Chen comment on this issue though and I know he was lugging one around.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 6:20:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 7KOPPER:
...unless you have a huge cheek, proper cheek weld can never be obtained with a standard stock, ...



With a head up stance (for optimal peripheral vision) the 553 is at the perfect heigh. If your running & gunning a head's up stance offers several advantages.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 6:21:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stump:

I'm one of those guys that uses the Larue QD riser for the Eotech. I'd bet if you had the chance to get any range time with the optic at that height you would be perfectly comfortable. I'm not a big guy whatsoever, and it fits me like a glove and is very natural after the first use.

It is preferable to me to have the dot above the irons also, rather than exactly in line with, gives you more room in the window. That is how the Aimpoint mounts are set up to cowitness as well.



I used the Larue riser of a class I took awhile back. Was very unhappy with the cheek weld I had, even after two days. I shoot whit my nose to the charging handle. Not sure if this would be possible with the 553, wasn't with the riser.

I run a BUIS in front and rear so the front sight thing does not effect me.

If a riser works for you on a 552 or 512 then the 553 with the ARMS mounts will work. I know there are alot of guys out there that this will not work for due to the height, and that's the only reason I brought this thread up.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 6:24:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/16/2006 6:24:20 PM EDT by Forest]

Originally Posted By 7KOPPER:
I shoot whit my nose to the charging handle. Not sure if this would be possible with the 553, wasn't with the riser.


Sure it is, it's just not optimal. I use nose-to the charging handle for irons, but for optics they need to be a bit higher for that peripheral vision and use of 2 eyes.

Are you trying to use this like irons / only using your dominant eye?
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 6:28:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By 7KOPPER:
I shoot whit my nose to the charging handle. Not sure if this would be possible with the 553, wasn't with the riser.


Sure it is, it's just not optimal. I use nose-to the charging handle for irons, but for optics they need to be a bit higher for that peripheral vision and use of 2 eyes.

Are you trying to use this like irons / only using your dominant eye?



Nope, both eyes open. I guess it's a comfort thing. I really like to "fold" / "smash" my cheek on the stock. FOr the sake of trying this out again I'll throw my bud's riser on this weekend and try it out again.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 6:44:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/16/2006 6:44:54 PM EDT by Forest]

Originally Posted By 7KOPPER:
... I guess it's a comfort thing. ....



Yep, sounds like all of us have different styles and differnt head sizes.

I do know that part of the raise in heigh was due to the CR123. They are thicker and it required a redesign of the housing for the thicker batteries (IIRC at a minimum it was a rise of 0.1" just for the batteries).
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 8:08:46 PM EDT
So far all sources say "no" on a non mil version of the 553. You have to remember the key words revolving around this sight are "military version". It was designed and built to a set of specifications as opposed to what company persons may have wanted to have it feature.

For example in conversations I had with Eotech over the phone they were told that it was required to use the ARMS throw lever system.

As for mounting the Eotech directly to the receiver or utilizing a riser such as the LaRue base I've had no problems with running the sight either way. I've never noticed a discomfort problem when using the basic iron sights or fold up BUIS. When I flip up and use my PRI front sight and KAC 600meter or 300 meter they're still visible through the window of the Eotech with riser without causing me to do anything appreciably different in how I hold the carbine.
Link Posted: 2/16/2006 8:13:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mcgrubbs:
Did any of you guys actually put hands on this at SHOT? I did and found it to be very sloppy and loose. It slid forward and aft on the rail with little force. Frankly I don't know what they were thiking puttin git on display at SHOT like that.



ARMS mounts can be like that. Almost impossible to close or very loose.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 7:23:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 7:52:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1001001:
So far all sources say "no" on a non mil version of the 553. You have to remember the key words revolving around this sight are "military version". It was designed and built to a set of specifications as opposed to what company persons may have wanted to have it feature.

For example in conversations I had with Eotech over the phone they were told that it was required to use the ARMS throw lever system.

As for mounting the Eotech directly to the receiver or utilizing a riser such as the LaRue base I've had no problems with running the sight either way. I've never noticed a discomfort problem when using the basic iron sights or fold up BUIS. When I flip up and use my PRI front sight and KAC 600meter or 300 meter they're still visible through the window of the Eotech with riser without causing me to do anything appreciably different in how I hold the carbine.



Thanks for the input. That is a shame, as the current version is overkill for 99% of us who are not (or who are no longer) in uniform. Sure, it is nice to have extra features, but I don't want to pay for them if I don't need them and wont' use them.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 8:00:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

Originally Posted By drabchoi:
I would definitely want to know if there is "513" in the future...!



I am thinking about having EOTech build me a 553, but without the ARMS mount and in black. It would also use the CR123A batts.


C4



Grant, that would be great. Would you have it downgraded (no NV, waterproof to "only" 10 feet?)?
I'd like it lower like the other models so I can mounted it on a GG&G.

If you can get EOTech to build that, you've got a buyer in me!

Link Posted: 2/17/2006 8:30:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 8:38:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

Originally Posted By drabchoi:
I would definitely want to know if there is "513" in the future...!



I am thinking about having EOTech build me a 553, but without the ARMS mount and in black. It would also use the CR123A batts.


C4



We have a few coming to out shop. I'm thinking of sending my 553 to Larue for custom mount unless he already has one in the works for the 553.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 8:56:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

Originally Posted By drabchoi:
I would definitely want to know if there is "513" in the future...!



I am thinking about having EOTech build me a 553, but without the ARMS mount and in black. It would also use the CR123A batts.


C4



I'll take one also. Let me know when to send funds. Seriously. All the features minus the ARMS & Black, perfect. -Justin
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 8:58:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 8:59:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

Originally Posted By paramarine326:

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

Originally Posted By drabchoi:
I would definitely want to know if there is "513" in the future...!



I am thinking about having EOTech build me a 553, but without the ARMS mount and in black. It would also use the CR123A batts.


C4



Grant, that would be great. Would you have it downgraded (no NV, waterproof to "only" 10 feet?)?
I'd like it lower like the other models so I can mounted it on a GG&G.

If you can get EOTech to build that, you've got a buyer in me!




I would keep the NV feature (as my target audience would be the .Mil crowd). It would however be much cheaper as it wouldn't have the ARMS mount.


C4



Grant, without the ARMS mount would it be lower than the current 553, and able to take a GG&G?
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 9:02:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 9:05:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 9:13:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

Originally Posted By paramarine326:

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

Originally Posted By paramarine326:

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

Originally Posted By drabchoi:
I would definitely want to know if there is "513" in the future...!



I am thinking about having EOTech build me a 553, but without the ARMS mount and in black. It would also use the CR123A batts.


C4



Grant, that would be great. Would you have it downgraded (no NV, waterproof to "only" 10 feet?)?
I'd like it lower like the other models so I can mounted it on a GG&G.

If you can get EOTech to build that, you've got a buyer in me!




I would keep the NV feature (as my target audience would be the .Mil crowd). It would however be much cheaper as it wouldn't have the ARMS mount.


C4



Grant, without the ARMS mount would it be lower than the current 553, and able to take a GG&G?



That is correct. Was thinking about going with one of EOTech's standard bases. This way it appeals to folks that like it mounted low and the folks that like it mounted higher can just buy a riser (like LT's EOTech mount).


C4



Cool, thanks. I'd be interested (even though, as I said before, it is over-engineered for me).

Are you in serious discussions with them? Do you think this might actually happen sometime soon?
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 1:55:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:01:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:


Cool, thanks. I'd be interested (even though, as I said before, it is over-engineered for me).

Are you in serious discussions with them? Do you think this might actually happen sometime soon?



I talked to EOTech at Shot about this and they seemed interested. The down side is that I have to come up with about $175k



C4



Eotech finally comes out with a model I am interested in (123 batteries, smaller than AA versions) and they muck it up. Grant, keep us posted!
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:07:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/17/2006 2:07:31 PM EDT by ipschoser1]

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:


I talked to EOTech at Shot about this and they seemed interested. The down side is that I have to come up with about $175k






So much for the new Lamborghini...
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:09:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:10:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:14:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:


Cool, thanks. I'd be interested (even though, as I said before, it is over-engineered for me).

Are you in serious discussions with them? Do you think this might actually happen sometime soon?



I talked to EOTech at Shot about this and they seemed interested. The down side is that I have to come up with about $175k



C4



WHOA. That's a LOT of EOTechs you would have to sell. I'm surprised they don't just take on this project themselves. Would they give you exclusive selling rights to it? I would hope so.

Hey man, I just shot you an email.

Semper fi
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:18:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 7:24:44 PM EDT
Not wanting to start an argument or fight, but there is a huge difference between 7KOPPER and SMGLee:

7KOPPER is a end-user

SMGLee isn't, no matter who he knows

Take that for what it's worth.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 3:53:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2006 4:00:06 AM EDT by gotm4]

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

Originally Posted By gotm4:

We have a few coming to out shop. I'm thinking of sending my 553 to Larue for custom mount unless he already has one in the works for the 553.



Not going to happen. First, the mount for the 553 is what holds the electronics in. So changing out the mount 100% voids your warranty (verified this w/EOTech at Shot). Second, I don't believe that LT has a mount for this optic built (am trying to go down this road now).

C4



That's what everyone was saying when I KG GunKoted my shield on my 552.



Later I snapped off the aftermarket extended thumb screw and emailed Eotech and they sent be two sets of 4 screws that replace the four shield screws, a new thumb screw and insert this after I told them I had to remove the shield to get the one piece out. These are supposed to be a one time use item but you can get away with reusing them by adding a little more blue loctite.

I can ask Eotech to sell me just the ARMS mount for a 553 or to send an ARMS mount to Larue for a mount them (one that's not on a sight). This could benefit them (w/money) because they could offer a 553 from the factory with a Larue already on it. The A.R.M.S. MIM (metal injection molded) mounts are more prone to breakage than a nice CNC machined Larue forging. And the Larues are lighter.

I don't know if you've had a lot of time since SHOT but the new Eotech catalog/brocure from actually has a Larue mount in the back of it as well as the RRA Dominator and some other mounts.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 2:16:52 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 4:27:40 PM EDT
WOW I didn't know it works on CR 123's!!!! I bought my first one - an N model - alooong time ago and found out N does NOT equal CR123! Was like two years ago, first gun, first optic, ayda yada. GREAT idea. Now I only have to put one kind of batterires in my stocks and grips for when the zombies come!

- I don't understand original posters issue. As it is now we have to buy a frikkin riser to get it where the 553 will be.

-I also have NO problem with ARMS mounts - or Larue mounts for that matter. Just would've liked the choice, but I'm guessing ARMS gave EOTHingie a good deal and it was more abusiness decision than anything else.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 8:07:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 4:13:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 5:03:46 PM EDT
Grant,

Perhaps I missed it in this post (or maybe another) but was there a reason why Eotech went with ARMS instead of Larue for mounting?
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 5:10:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 5:12:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

Originally Posted By rcoers:
Grant,

Perhaps I missed it in this post (or maybe another) but was there a reason why Eotech went with ARMS instead of Larue for mounting?



Apparently CRANE asked for the ARMS mount. EOTech wanted to go with a mount from LT. There is a lot of political BS that goes on within CRANE/SOCOM so we won't get into that.


C4



Politics? Say it ain't so! Would you have preferred LT over ARMS (in your professional opinion)?
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 5:16:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 5:18:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 5:19:19 PM EDT
MIM? Forgive my ignorance!
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 5:27:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rcoers:
MIM? Forgive my ignorance!



Metal Injection Molded, which is a fancy way of saying CAST.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 5:41:18 PM EDT
You make me a sight that uses surefire batterieis and I don't care if it has a freaking B-square mount - IO'm buyin some!
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top