How did EOtech become so popular despite it's thermal

>marketing
>military contracts
>they look scifi as fuck

>>31074489
Because for 99% of users it was never an issue.

>>31074489
Cowadooty

>>31074489
Because no one knew about the issue until it was popular.

Now it's shit.

>>31074525
>having to re-zero your sight is a non issue
lol

>>31074489

Thermal drift issue was only noticed recently through extended use by military personnel. Up until that point they were really the only game in town for a holographic sight, this sight allowing for a small more precise dot in the center and the larger "reaction fire" ring around it.

They secured extensive military contracts and were featured heavily in video games such as Call of Duty. The sight in the games was always a "holographic" sight, but like I said, EOTech is the only holographic sight maker out there.

>>31074550
Let me put it another way, 99% of users never put their Eotechs in conditions to cause this issue.

Inb4
>hurr durr but I actually operate
No you fucking don't.

>>31074561
>eotech is the only homographic sight maker
im sorry if retarded but, isn't aimpoint also holographic?

>>31074525
for me, it was the delamination that killed my 552. Not being able to see the reticle at all was a major failure.

>>31074539
> this

>>31074572
I dunno about you, but my rifles see the interior of a hot car pretty regularly.

>>31074591
So has mine, and it's yet to be an issue.

>>31074577
I think the only place I've seen delamination is on /k/. Still a shitty issue though.

File: SEK-Berlin.jpg (255KB, 1250x915px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1250x915px

Fuck. I wanted an Eotech because I'm cross eye dominate and I think I could acquire the sight on an Eotech easier than that tiny dot on the Aimpoint. Fuuuck.

>>31074576
Aimpoints are reflex sights, and use an LED for the dot, reflected off an internal lens.

EOTechs use a laser and holographic lens to project a holographic reticle at distance. It's was a really nice reticle, but had the grainy laser interference thing going on.

>>31074628
Buy the optic that works for you when you look through it, you're going to have a bad fucking time if you buy one to please someone else

File: SEK.jpg (151KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1024x576px

>>31074636
It's not about pleasing others, it's I'm now worried about these problems they're having and if I spend $500(a lot of money to a poor collegefag such as myself) on one and the company goes under and I'm having issues, I'll be fucked.

>grainy reticle
>inferior battery life
>objectively not as durable
>nitrogen leaking issue
>bulkier/heavier
>$500+
Why people choose these things over an Aimpoint MD is beyond me.

>>31074654
ok, buy the one you can't use because you're cross eye dominate and let us know how that works

Call of duty.

They look futuristic.

Illuminated sight for some reason pleases morons, like bugs to a light.

>>31074613
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJixnTTKgiM

Mine god so bad I could only see the dot in some spots, but you get just slightly off and it's gone.

File: 1457267379495.jpg (95KB, 724x720px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 724x720px

>>31074628
>holosun?

>>31074489
In addition to what other people have said, the large window and general ease of use lend themselves very well to being fast on close targets. If you are doing competition or just gone defense, it is hard to hate the things. The holographic reticle is usually sharper for people with astigmatism. Every LED red dot I have ever used has a distinct, asymmetrical halo for me.

>>31074550
The thermal drift issue is present, but it is not as though the optic becomes useless. While I will happily stick with my issued Aimpoint for my service rifle, I would not berated someone liking something else.

>>31074654
I'm cross eye dominant and have no issue using standard red dot. It's more about the image being completely occluded from your dominant eye than the size of the dot.

>>31074675
all of you fail to mention how much it was used in the military. pretty much all E-5 and above in my infantry company had an eotech. everyone saw this shit back home and went bananas to put it on their own little black rifles.

>>31074572
You're right, I don't "operate" but I used a 552 with a 3x magnifier for 3-gun for a few years, in a place that gets 100+ degrees in the summer and below freezing in the winter. In that time period I sent it in twice for gas leaks where the reticle was so dim it was nearly useless in bright daylight, and it did require frequent re-zeroing. I wish it was a better optic, because for a red dot it really shines with a magnifier out to 350-400 yards, but the truth is it's a shit design.

>>31074613
>I think the only place I've seen delamination is on /k/
It's a very real issue, I had to send my 552 in twice for the same thing.

>>31074525
>Texas
>Alaska
>Implying

>>31074671
Why wouldn't I be able to use it because I'm cross eye dominate? I just thought the Eotech would be easier since it's larger and the reticle is larger.
>>31074763
>It's more about the image being completely occluded from your dominant eye than the size of the dot
Got it, thanks anon. I'm between Eotech and Aimpoint with a lean towards Aimpoint.

>>31074489
Fanboys.

People who rave about something despite not having actually put it through any testing and comparison to anything else. See also: glockfags.