Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 2/8/2006 11:04:17 AM EDT
I am in the market for an EOTech: 510 or 550.

Whats the difference besides the battery and lengh?

And why should I go with either one.

Ant info will help
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 11:14:49 AM EDT
not an eotech fan but this is my understanding of them since the new rev.f


only difference is the nv compatability.


personally if i were to get an eotech i would get the 551 less weitght, smaller/shorter footprint, nv if i ever decide to get one.


Link Posted: 2/8/2006 11:53:44 AM EDT
What is the deal with the Bushnell sight?

For just a few bucks more I can get the EOTech.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 12:14:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cajunconan:
What is the deal with the Bushnell sight?

For just a few bucks more I can get the EOTech.




think you just answered your own question



the eotech has the shroud the bushnell doesnt
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 12:24:16 PM EDT
Quoc, why don't you like eotechs?
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 12:31:49 PM EDT
I picked up last year an EOTech 552 (w/NV and AA batteries). I forward mounted it on the pic rails (I removed the handguards and put a quad rail system there). It is just as easy, imho, to shoot with it mounted forward where it is, as opposed to back on the upper receiver, where it was. I suppose that any 1x would be easy to see through, but the big piece of glass to look through makes it nice.

I'm getting an NV device to stick behind it for future fun, which is why I got the 552.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 12:35:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/8/2006 12:37:42 PM EDT by eklikwhoa]

Originally Posted By MauserMark:
Quoc, why don't you like eotechs?



personal preferrence.


the eotech is a bit grainy and busy which slightly distracts the eyes.
mounting options are limited.
controls are a bit of a hassle if a fixed buis is mounted close behind it.
battery life compared to the aimpoints 50,000 hrs on setting 7 of 10.
dot is simple on the aimpoint along with its simple turn knob.

i compared the two when i first started with reddots and the aimpoint was more appealing and shortly after a friend purchased an eotech which i compared to the aimpoint and for me the aimpoint just worked better. the eotech is a nice reddot but just not for me and the friend who bought it ended up selling his. i am going on my third aimpoint now and have never regretted a single bit of it.

but as you know mark i would choose an acog over either
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 12:42:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cajunconan:
What is the deal with the Bushnell sight?

For just a few bucks more I can get the EOTech.



EOTech makes the Bushnell.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 12:43:35 PM EDT
have ACOG's come donw in price at all yet?
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 12:52:30 PM EDT
I find the wider screen of the EOTech to be much faster than the smaller tube of the Aimpoint.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 12:52:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MauserMark:
have ACOG's come donw in price at all yet?




they have lowered drastically from what they were a few years ago but like everything else they are starting to go back up.


i think they are much cheaper now though, hell i just picked up ta31a for $800 brand new
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 1:07:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/8/2006 1:08:41 PM EDT by eklikwhoa]

Originally Posted By terrydavis:
I find the wider screen of the EOTech to be much faster than the smaller tube of the Aimpoint.





when shooting with both eyes open all you see is a thin black 30moa ring with a 4/2 moa dot in the center and the eotech has the black square with a 65moa ring and a 1moa dot.

i see that either are just as fast but the eotech's square and 65moa distracts the eye more than just the aimpoints black ring. both reddots are cqb optics which using with both eyes open provide an unobstructed field of veiw along with being much broader than traditional scopes.

so when viewing with both eyes open your eyes blur the "tube" or "square frame" and all you see is mainly the actual reticle and the target/background, basically when properly used as designed all you will really see is a floating reticle.


i see where you are coming from terrydavis but i ask that you further explain your reasoning behind your comment/opinion.

i will also add that the acog's bindon concept is a great concept backing what i am trying to explain.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 1:28:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:

Originally Posted By terrydavis:
I find the wider screen of the EOTech to be much faster than the smaller tube of the Aimpoint.





when shooting with both eyes open all you see is a thin black 30moa ring with a 4/2 moa dot in the center and the eotech has the black square with a 65moa ring and a 1moa dot.

i see that either are just as fast but the eotech's square and 65moa distracts the eye more than just the aimpoints black ring. both reddots are cqb optics which using with both eyes open provide an unobstructed field of veiw along with being much broader than traditional scopes.

so when viewing with both eyes open your eyes blur the "tube" or "square frame" and all you see is mainly the actual reticle and the target/background, basically when properly used as designed all you will really see is a floating reticle.


i see where you are coming from terrydavis but i ask that you further explain your reasoning behind your comment/opinion.

i will also add that the acog's bindon concept is a great concept backing what i am trying to explain.



No one has perfect head position at all times. Practice make you better, never perfect. You are right if you have perfect head position with both eyes open and you are focusing on the target, I don't see much difference. Turn your reticle down and it won't distract you. If you don't have perfect head position the EOTech's wider screen is more forgiving. That is why I say at 150 yards and in it is quicker. I'm not really discussing the Acog. It is in a different class. Marines are making kills at 800 yards with them. I will grant they are better at distances of over 150 yards. Again, this is my personal preference, I won't argue with some one who has a different preference.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 1:45:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By terrydavis:

Originally Posted By cajunconan:
What is the deal with the Bushnell sight?

For just a few bucks more I can get the EOTech.



EOTech makes the Bushnell.



Look at it this way. If you ever decide to sell the EO you will probably get more for it than the Bushnell.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 3:00:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rbailey:

Originally Posted By terrydavis:

Originally Posted By cajunconan:
What is the deal with the Bushnell sight?

For just a few bucks more I can get the EOTech.



EOTech makes the Bushnell.



Look at it this way. If you ever decide to sell the EO you will probably get more for it than the Bushnell.



Sure, but you paid more also.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 3:35:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 3:39:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 4:48:34 PM EDT
When I was looking at buying an EOT for the carbine, the 552 was the model I decided on, although I ended up with an Aimpoint M3.

By no means trying to turn this into yet another EOT vs. AP debate [that is strictly a personal preference issue], but the 552 and M3 both share the same attributes within their respective product lines:

-longest battery life available [with an additional plus on the EOT front for the AA vs. N in that batteries are also less expensive and more readily available]
-NV compatability....one never knows what the future may bring

There is a significant $$$ difference though between a 511 and a 552.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 3:45:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By terrydavis:

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:

Originally Posted By terrydavis:
I find the wider screen of the EOTech to be much faster than the smaller tube of the Aimpoint.





when shooting with both eyes open all you see is a thin black 30moa ring with a 4/2 moa dot in the center and the eotech has the black square with a 65moa ring and a 1moa dot.

i see that either are just as fast but the eotech's square and 65moa distracts the eye more than just the aimpoints black ring. both reddots are cqb optics which using with both eyes open provide an unobstructed field of veiw along with being much broader than traditional scopes.

so when viewing with both eyes open your eyes blur the "tube" or "square frame" and all you see is mainly the actual reticle and the target/background, basically when properly used as designed all you will really see is a floating reticle.


i see where you are coming from terrydavis but i ask that you further explain your reasoning behind your comment/opinion.

i will also add that the acog's bindon concept is a great concept backing what i am trying to explain.



No one has perfect head position at all times. Practice make you better, never perfect. You are right if you have perfect head position with both eyes open and you are focusing on the target, I don't see much difference. Turn your reticle down and it won't distract you. If you don't have perfect head position the EOTech's wider screen is more forgiving. That is why I say at 150 yards and in it is quicker. I'm not really discussing the Acog. It is in a different class. Marines are making kills at 800 yards with them. I will grant they are better at distances of over 150 yards. Again, this is my personal preference, I won't argue with some one who has a different preference.




not trying to start an argument over personal preferrence since no two person is alike which makes the ar industry such a great one imo theres something out there for everyone.

i was just pointing out that in cqb i.e. around 50yds or less with both eyes open you only see the reticle on the target so the size of the housing/glass has minimal difference between the two.

also agree the acog is in a different class of optics but i was just referring to the bac which basically makes the acog a reddot when able to use properly, just a reticle on a target.

Link Posted: 2/9/2006 11:40:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zhukov:
The first question is: does the size matter? If you *really* want the smaller version then that's simple. I went with the shorter one since it's more compact, but I kinda wish I'd have opted for the longer battery life of the AA version.

Night vision or not? I don't really ever plan on owning NVGs, so that's a no-brainer for me.

Based on your needs, you'll fall into one of the 4 categories of models that EOtech offers.
511 N, No NV
512 N, NV
551 AA, No NV
552 AA, NV

For the small price differential, I wouldn't bother with the Bushnell. Get the EOtech version and
you've got someting much more rugged.



When did EOTech change their model numbers? I've got two, a 512.A65 (AA batteries, no NV) and a 522.A65 (AA batteries, NV compatible).
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 12:41:43 PM EDT
i think he got it backwards.....


511 n no nv
512 aa no nv

551 n w/ nv
552 aa w/nv


last number is battery type second is nv/mil model
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 2:23:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
i think he got it backwards.....


511 n no nv
512 aa no nv

551 n w/ nv
552 aa w/nv


last number is battery type second is nv/mil model



All EOTechs are compatible with 2nd Generation Night Vision. The 550 series is compatable with 3rd Generation Night Vision.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 2:56:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By terrydavis:

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
i think he got it backwards.....


511 n no nv
512 aa no nv

551 n w/ nv
552 aa w/nv


last number is battery type second is nv/mil model



All EOTechs are compatible with 2nd Generation Night Vision. The 550 series is compatable with 3rd Generation Night Vision.




so what is the purpose of the nv series then?


from eotech site:

The Model 550 HOLOgraphic Weapon Sight (HWS) is fully compatible with all generation levels of night vision intensifier tubes. A special night vision (NV) setting allows the operator to immediately drop the brightness intensity of the holographic reticle to eliminate any "halo" effect while viewing through an image intensifier tube. The M550 can be positioned in tandem behind night vision intensifiers without any "bloom" of the target area. Now, operators can combine the proven night vision technological advantage with a superior close quarters weapon optic to achieve greatly enhanced weapon aiming - in complete darkness.


Night Vision toggle Switch (10 Settings)

Unlike active IR laser pointer systems, the HWS is a passive system and emits no muzzle-side signature. While in the NV mode, the HWS not detectable by enemy night vision surveillance systems, providing operators with a stealth means for effective nighttime weapon aiming.

The M550's unique switch allows the operator to instantly drop the holographic reticle's brightness to the NV mode of operation. The operator has the ability to toggle back and forth between the NV mode and the normal day/night operation within fractions of a second. The M550 has 10 distinct night vision settings to provide maximum flexibility to the operator. Typically 3 to 4 brightness settings are not enough to support a host of constantly changing conditions including manufacturing variances in the sensitivities of the image intensifier tubes, varying ambient environments, and varying light gathering sensitivities of the human eye across users. The M550 still maintains the 20 normal brightness settings for normal day/night operations.

Top Top