Acogs vs elcans

File: whyme.jpg (207KB, 579x819px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 579x819px

>>33045801
Iron sights.

>>33045814
Open or closed?

File: 1476560670071.png (696KB, 840x623px) Image search: [Google]

696KB, 840x623px

>>33045801
Master your irons first before you start subscribing to tacticool shit. Then you can form your own opinions instead of being a faggot online.

File: duster.jpg (295KB, 1600x531px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1600x531px

>>33045841
I'd prefer closed, but it's up to you anon.

>>33045841
Depends on what you're doing. Closed are better for marksmanship, open for combat and target acquisition.

File: 1484269784282.jpg (288KB, 780x591px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 780x591px

>>33045801
An ACOG has 4x and 6x sights. An ECLAN has 3.4x sight and his heavier. Both are fixed magnification and are considered overpriced shit for value.

>>33045868
False.
Elcan makes dual magnification optics and one fixed power LMG sight, CV the M145.

Better options are the Specter series. Either the 1/4x with 556 BDC or the 1.5/6x with 7.62 BDC.

I'm a professional photographer who did work for Elcan, and was given all 3 optics in exchange for featuring them in other photoshoots.

Great quality and clarity, but yeah the price is fucking nuts. Plus, all three are heavy as shit. Still, if money were no object, and I could only have one optic, it would be a SpecterDR 1x/4x.

File: 20160816_123304_resized.jpg (2MB, 3984x2241px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3984x2241px

>>33045801
ACOG, unless you want a Block II or Mk Mod 1 clone, then go with the Elcan.

You'll here a bunch of opinions on here OP, but it's a fact that SOCOM stopped using ACOGs for the Elcan Spectre.

>>33045801
neither are better than an aimpoint or eotech

File: IMG_2441.jpg (2MB, 3449x1993px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3449x1993px

>>33045801
ACOG
>>33047908
Yeah and the optic that last saw UBL alive was an EOTECH, your point?

Also, he'll probably hear a lot of stupid opinions, like yours. Since you couldn't even spell hear correctly.

>>33047948
Post your rifle.

>Heavier than an ACOG
>Forced to use a shitty ARMS mount
>Exposed adjustment
>Entire optic is moved instead of just the crosshairs when said exposed adjustments are used

It's not even a contest, ACOG is far superior.

>>33047908
SOCOM has also been known to use Eotechs instead of Aimpoints, and look how that turned out.

>>33047958
I think his point is that EOTechs and Elcan's, despite what gun magazines and shills like Larry Vickers say, are good optics.

>>33047984
They aren't good optics.

>>33045801
dat chicken wing

File: IMG_0567.jpg (2MB, 3888x2592px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3888x2592px

>>33047984
As a former EOTech owner, I can pretty accurately tell you they aren't good optics.

POI shift from that slight of tempature variation is unacceptable.

>>33047984
>EOTechs and Elcan's, despite what gun magazines and shills like Larry Vickers say, are good optics.
>ELCAN
Debatable.
>Eotech
If you think widespread nitrogen leaks, delamination and thermal drift are features "good" optics display to the point the company implements a total no-questions-asked refund, then yeah.

>>33047986
>They aren't good optics.
>>33048005

Really, do you have any objective proof that an EOTech made 2 months ago will do anything different from an Aimpoint other than run out of batteries faster?

>>33048005
>POI shift from that slight of temperature variation is unacceptable.
You do know changes in temperature will change powder temperature, air density, will shift your POI too, right? Have you seen any tests on whether an aimpoint will or not?

>>33048033
I have multiple EOTechs. I have had some with the exact problems SOCOM found and listed in their suit. I have some that never had any issues. They biggest thing was they found those issues and didn't disclose to SOCOM while they worked on a fix over a long period of time. I had all of mine fixed for free by EOTech out of warranty (this was before EOTech SOCOM memes were even a thing) without any Nitrogen leaks afterwards on the older ones of mine that were affected. Literally all of this was public domain knowledge and yet none of the /k/iddos ever called EOTech out on these things until SOCOM did a test for them. Most of the issues have been rectified.

Read for yourself.

http://www.eotechinc.com/dear-valued-eotech-customer

>>33048072
Well yes, I do, because they are still selling the same models and haven't made any changes.

Topkek, there were MASSIVE POI shift issues with their optics that were absolutely optics specific and were permanent, meaning you'd have to rezero once you figured out you were shooting 4 MOA in any random direction.

Just stop. I owned an EOTech, I saw the writing on the wall so I got the refund. It's an absolute peice of shit compared to even Aimpoint PROs I've used.

The ACOG. Specters are overrated pieces of shit. They're heavy, the glass isn't all that great for the price, they have a lot of chromatic aberration from what I remember, they're extremely heavy for what you're getting (an x4 optic with a throw lever to your typical untrue x1), and they have weak throw levers (lol built in A.R.M.S. mount with a shitty magnification switching lever that's known to break).

The ACOG, by comparison, is about half the price (if you search around you can get them for around $1000-1200), has far better glass, and has the user's choice of mounting system. It's fixed magnification, but in reality it's better to have fixed magnification with an RMR than quick change fake x1/x4 simply because lifting your cheek is a whole lot easier than taking a control hand off the weapon to throw a lever.

>>33047908
>it's a fact that SOCOM stopped using ACOGs for the Elcan Spectre
Alright? It's also a fact that SOCOM stopped using M4s for the 416; it's a fact that SOCOM units wore fucking light gray jackets into combat in the mid-2000s rather than camouflaged jackets; it's a fact that SOCOM was wearing desert night vision camouflage into combat well into the 2000s even though it was well known it's the worst performing camouflage under night vision to exist in the NATO spectrum; it's a fact that some SOCOM units still wear fucking M81 woodland rather than Multicam even in arid environments.

In case you didn't get the idea: SOCOM does a lot of fucking stupid shit, just because SOCOm does it doesn't mean it's a good idea, nor does it mean that you're cool because you do it too. A good bunch of shit that SOCOM uses at any given time is some form of experiment to test the feasibility of full-scale adoption by a major force; the rest of it is mission-specific gear. If you make your purchase decisions based on SOCOM pictures, you're really just spending a shitload of money to use shit that the government is testing to one degree or another.

>>33048033
Lmao this homo thinks he's gonna be using his Eotech in -40 degree weather to hunt islamic communist nazis, then the next campaign do it in 120 degree saudi iraqi stan

File: Trijicon-Thermal-Drift.png (210KB, 697x977px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 697x977px

>>33048102
>Aimpoint PROs I've used.
Have you tested aimpoints for POI shift or are you going to wait for SOCOM do that for you too? Even Trijicon RMOs suffer from this issue. What makes you think aimpoints don't do this too?

>>33048146
>anon has no idea
Sad.

>>33048146
>be me
>live in south FL
>put rifle in car
>leave car out for an hour


Well fug now I guess I have to re zero

>>33048154
wtf MRO sucks now I want a full refund

>>33048154
Except none of the other competing optics had their zeroes shift by 20 MOA because the rifles went from a heated car to a 20 degree range in New Hampshire at any point between October and April.

>>33048154
Look at the temperatures involved here.

EOTechs fail at 120F, and -40F by more than 4MOA, then are about 2.5 MOA off.

You will NEVER see 160F or -60F in any realistic circumstance.

You will however easily experience 120F if you live in an area that regularly reaches 90F+, inside cars.

>>33045801
An ACOG all day. Elcans are great mounted on machine guns, but are a bit harder to acquire the reticle as quickly as ACOG. ACOGS are for rifles

>>33048202
Look at the blatant double think going on here. Again what thermal shift do you think an aimpoint has? You have zero objective proof to say that EOTechs are categorically worse performers compared to other red dots. MROs have similar levels of POI shift from extreme temperature ranges. What makes you think Aimpoints aren't shifting up to 10 MOA? How do you know they aren't? How do you know the EOTechs aren't actually even better in that regard?

>>33048239
this is some advanced level of denial

>>33048239
>What makes you think Aimpoints aren't shifting up to 10 MOA? How do you know they aren't? How do you know the EOTechs aren't actually even better in that regard?
Nigger this is just getting sad...

File: IMG_0451.jpg (101KB, 960x939px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 960x939px

>>33048239
>mfw

Bro.

>>33048105
Except woodland is better than multishit, faggot

>>33045801
Elcans if you Canadian or from Denmark.

Acog if you American or rely heavily on NATO

I prefer Acogs desu senpai.

>>33045814
Leave.

>>33047981
Yeah, and they've also been known to replace EOtechs with Aimpoint Micros after they found out EOtech lied on their contracts. Even then it's not like problem were widespread.

>>33047958
>Blah blah UBL
What's your point? If you have a non malfunctioning EOtech it's a great optic.

As are Elcans and you're not going to have any breakage issues with them.

File: 20161021_154643.jpg (3MB, 1836x3264px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1836x3264px

>>33045868
>tfw fixed 4x Elcan masterrace
Stay uninformed, stay poor, and stay mad kiddo

File: 20161212_160238.jpg (817KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

817KB, 1920x1080px

>>33048221
Hmm, yes. I see the Elcan and Acog reticles are vastly different

>>33048382
My point is that talking up SOCOM use is exactly what it sounds like, which is Blah blah blah muh SF.

And I don't think you understand the problem with EOTechs, all of them are defective by design.

>>33048428
>blah blah blah muh SF
Yeah, it's not like the group that's been fighting a war for the past decade and a half might know a thing or two about combat optics.

ACOGs got replaced by Elcans, end of story. If you think there was some flaw in their testing for the Elcan bring it up.

Also I've used an EOtech on my service rifle for the past 4 years and have yet to have an issue. They have issues, but it's pretty fucking rare that you'll be in circumstances were they'll crop up.

>>33045801
Acog. Come on Son.
>>33045814
I love Irons but I'm aging and zooms are nice as you lose vision.

File: 1861755_02_elcan_specterdr_5_56_fde__640[1].jpg (39KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x427px

>>33045801
There is no way a fixed 4x can compete with 1x/4x variable gravy colored optics.

File: 15232839422_e418f95289_o.jpg (68KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1024x681px

>>33045801
Both are offered in whatever the latest SOPMOD kit is and oper8ors generally prefer ELCANs.

>>33048744
>>33048794
T.People who have never used them and in>>33048794 case talk out of their ass about people they've never met.

>>33048824
Let's hear what you have to say about why the ACOG is better.

>>33047958

>acogs are better because I own one

>>33048332
Except woodland isn't better than multishit when it comes to anything. Multicam is a better camouflage pattern with color schemes that actually exist in nature, whereas most M81 woodland tends to be too dark.

>>33048885
In what fucking universe is
>having better glass
>having better mounts
>having better adjustment
>having lighter weight
not evidence of being a better optic? You're literally the same kind of retard who would argue that Eotechs are better than an Aimpoint T-2.

File: 68498468468546846846854.jpg (856KB, 2016x1002px) Image search: [Google]

856KB, 2016x1002px

>>33048885
Have you ever used an ELCAN? They're pretty bad. ACOGs are great if fixed 4x, being bomb proof and light weight are a priority.

People with common sense are using low power variables these days like the Accupoint, Accupower, VX series, Kahles 1-6x, Vortex 1-6x, etc.

The ELCAN is perhaps the biggest waste of optic money I can think of.

>>33048925
Elcan Specter DR 1-4x > ACOG x4

>>33045801
How come internet autists always sperg out about vertical-gripping a vertical foregrip, when the guys who are actually getting in gunfights seem to do it that way

AFAIK there's no combat footage of soldiers using thumb over bore or thumbbreak or doing those lame ass hollywood "transitions"

File: IMG_2463.jpg (350KB, 959x776px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 959x776px

>>33048885
>>33048901
All you need to do is read this, it's more comprehensive than anything I'm willing to write.

The TL;DR why I prefer the ACOG is

1. 1-4x is functionally useless
2. The Elcan is heavier
3. The Elcan, at least the one I used, had an inferior reticle to my ACOG
4. The Elcan had poor glass
5. The Elcan, for 2'000+ dollars, doesn't have a true 1x
6. You can get an ACOG/RMR combo for less than an Elcan and have an undeniably easier to use 1 to 4 transition than the Elcan.
7. It's Canadian

>>33048982
Read>>33048105

File: 1484172627375.jpg (2MB, 3859x2568px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3859x2568px

>>33048945
>>33048794
>>33048539
>>33048382
>>33047908
>It's another "these dudes know what they're doing, how dare you question anything that they use/do?" thread
These are always good for a laff.

File: 1485297890492.jpg (178KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1600x1000px

>>33049006

>>33048982
Fair enough, however:

>1-4x is functionally useless
That's absolutely ridiculous. What you're describing with an ACOG/RMR combination is essentially a 4x and 1x optic.

>It's Canadian
Not anymore.

>>33049047
It's not true 1x and no one ever, ever uses the 1x function on variable power optics.

>>33048903
Yea there's totally nothing but tans in every environment in the world. It's nice to know you never leave your moms basement

>>33049047
I meant what he said>>33049067

Most people either stay in 1x or they stay in 4x.

I've seen 3 gunners make rapid transitions but as far as I know, now they're just using Acog/RMR setups.

File: IMG_0171.jpg (512KB, 1143x818px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 1143x818px

>>33049067
>no one ever, ever uses the 1x function on variable power optics.
Maybe not on ELCAN trash, but most people use 1x and dial up to 4x/6x/8x only if/when they need to stretch out to 300+. That's the whole benefit to "true" 1x optics. Reflex/red dot comparable speed with the ability to ID and make shots at distance when needed.

File: Capture.png (237KB, 876x365px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 876x365px

>>33048257
>>33048284
>>33048292
Literally zero proof of aimpoint POI shift or lack thereof. Trijicon has tested theirs and proved that they have thermal shift that is slightly less so than the EOTech. Where is the data on aimpoints? I'm certain none of you have any idea or figure of what aimpoints will drift to. If you were to shill MROs over EOTechs because of less thermal drift your arguments would be very well founded. None of you can account for calling EOTechs thermal drift being worse than an aimpoint since there is no good data out there corroborating aimpoints thermal shift.

Seriously, I've never seen a good test of an aimpoint done in the same way people have made well done tests about the EOTech's shift. Take a look at this picture. The video is now gone but it was a poorly done test that demonstrated aimpoints have thermal drift similar to an EOTech. This is literally the only data I've ever seen on aimpoints thermal shifting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKlJX5wCwL4

>>33049018
>but if he takes off his carry handle then he has no BUIS and thus also an ametuer :((((

>>33051216
Larry Vickers seems to like Aimpoints better than EOTechs and he was in SOCOM. He even calls EOTechs trash. Even though he's just one person and I'm pretty sure he has a very worthwhile opinion on the subject.

>>33051216
Even if aimpoints thermal shift is worse it still has more battery life.

>>33051216
Wow

What a scientific graph

"Cold" "Hot"

It almost makes me believe EOTechs aren't trash

>>33052091
>he was in SOCOM
who gives a shit

>>33052091
Larry Vickers is an Aimpoint Spokesperson... So... yeah...

>>33052367
>still cannot attribute aimpoints better thermal properties to anything other than online gunboard fanboyism :^)

I literally called it a shitty test but it's the only one in the public domain at all. Just go and try to find any data on aimpoint thermal shift. It is not available. I wonder why aimpoint has not publicly disclosed theirs when Trijicon and EOTech has.

>>33049080
Yeah there's totally no variant of Multicam than standard Multicam; no Tropic, arid, or alpine.

>>33048901
And you own either?

>>33052408
Because they have an impeccable quality record anyways?

I've seen pictures of Aimpoints that survived house fires and still retained both function and relative zero.

>>33048102
You are really dumb, dawg. Like, REALLY dumb.

File: bombed-gameboy.jpg (32KB, 450x449px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 450x449px

>>33052445
>if everyone just simply says aimpoints are better than they must be!
Remember when all of /k/ and people like you loved EOTechs before the SOCOM suit?

>I've seen pictures of Aimpoints that survived house fires and still retained both function and relative zero.

They remounted that one on a different gun and re-zero'ed it, nice try. Gameboys have survived house fires, too. I don't use house fires as a metric for durability.

File: image.jpg (89KB, 495x278px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 495x278px

Best sights

>>33052487
This is what impotent rage looks like.

>>33052508
No actually before this came out I was advised by almost everyone to avoid EOTechs.

Because they're shit.

Leupold 1-6.
Fuckers.

Don't own either. But followed the eotech debacle.

Here's the thing. Look back at reviews from online shopping sites, blogs, gun rags about the Eotech prior to 2015 or whenever shtf about the thermal drift. Consistently it was rated highly. It was the de facto standard go-to optic for many civilians, military, and law enforcement. And a LOT of fucking people got it. And you will be hard pressed to find anyone complaining about thermal drift or even losing zero.


After the government found out they lied about thermal drift, EVERYONE was suddenly an operator that zeroed their rifle in Antarctica and having issues fighting ninjas in the Sahara. In reality I'm more inclined to think that 98% of these rifles are safe queens and the owner went out of their way to duplicate the defect.

I haven't gotten one because I think they're overpriced considering that it's outdated given what else is now available on the market. It seems more like a $300 optic tops. I'm NEVER in the situation where the thermal drift will make a difference. I don't shoot at ranges where the drift will have a huge effect and I don't live in a region that will experience the type of temperature fluctuations. For the right price I'd buy it though.

>>33052408
>Just go and try to find any data on aimpoint thermal shift. It is not available.
Probably because it's hardly present at all you fucking mongoldoid, are you seriously arguing that Aimpoint optics have worse thermal drift than the heavily reported Eotech's? Are you an actual retard?

>>33052585
a2 sights a shit, a1 sights are best

>>33052508
>Remember when all of /k/ and people like you loved EOTechs before the SOCOM suit?
No, I do remember everyone saying that getting a certain series of smaller, lighter combat optics that had stupidly better battery life was by far a better choice though.

>>33045849
blow your brains out

>>33053849
This. They're fine at a price, just not the one they're asking for. It's not like the thing is going to get you killed. You're probably not going to be shooting for your life and, if you are, it's going to be close enough that it really doesn't matter. All sights have some degree of drift, the only question is how much you are willing to accept. It's also far from the only problem holographic and red dot sights have.

>>33053962
Not him, but they don't publish it because they don't care. It's not a priority for them. EOTech pretty much has to publish figures because they hurped all they could derp. Trijicon just chooses to. At the end of the day, it's just not something that most consumers care about. They're not going to decide against spending $600+ on an optic because of their reported findings. EOTech still continues to sell sights, despite having been a part of a high-profile lawsuit. Many people buy products without bothering to do background research.

I've used everything and anything so I'll just cover:

>EOTech - I first used one of these when they were on the early market as Bushnell Holosights. Pretty solid sight but expensive and left a lot to be desired.
>Aimpoint - We've had Aimpoints in our family since before I was born. I still run two original Electronics and two Mark III's along with other newer (but still old to today's standards) Aimpoints. Even the 40+ year old Electronics still run like a sewing machine. I buy nothing but aimpoint if I want a simple red dot reticle.
>Trijicon - Always been a quality product. Pricey but quality. It was a nice additional because used to if we wanted a short zoom scope option, one of the best ideas was to mount a pistol scope (like an older Burris or Redfield) to your rifle. Give you 2-7x usually.
>Elcan - The only Elcan I've ever owned is a DigitalHunter scope, and I still have it. It's finicky as fuck but it was new and unique technology when it came out. I got one on discount because the store owner had it returned four different times because the buyers did not like the configuration and software.

As far as the EOTech lawsuit, L-3 has pulled that shit in the past with their products so it's of no real surprise. But at the same time, there really hasn't been much in regards to competition for the particular type of optic the general EOTech is. I'm not considering the slew of Chinese offerings such as Sightmark, though Sightmark is a nice budget brand for inexpensive firearms.

IMO, Aimpoint should adopt the C-More system which allows people to swap out dot designs.

>>33055239
I've never been sold on the idea of differently shaped dots. What is it that you like about them? As far as I've ever been concerned, a dot suffices for pretty much everything.

>>33055291

Different platforms. I prefer large circles (like the EOTech) for shotguns. Small dots for rifles, large dots for close quarters carbines/pistols/etc.

If I'm running a magnifier, I do prefer an EOTech-style reticle to just a dot, but I have no issue with the dot. I even have a couple of the vintage 1.5-4x screw-in aimpoint scopes for the original aimpoints. Works fine, though not as tacticool as today's flip magnifiers.

File: 1439037219660.png (85KB, 220x232px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 220x232px

>>33052585
>a2 instead of a1

>>33055353
I guess I never saw the utility in putting one on anything other than a carbine. I suppose I can see the logic behind a shotgun, but the idea of putting one on a full-length rifle just rankles. I find the normal size of the dot to be annoyingly large at anything much past 100 yards.

>>33055433

Scroll up and find the anon who mentioned eyesight earlier.

Trust me, as you get older, the utility of a dedicated optic goes way up. Plus I have migraine headaches and issues focusing at times, so trying to hone in on a damn manual sight can hurt my eyes. But same for looking through many regular scopes.

>>33047981
>>Exposed adjustment
>>Entire optic is moved instead of just the crosshairs when said exposed adjustments are used
this seems like a deal breaker but it clearly isn't because the fucking thing sells and is in service. is it just overblown then?

>>33048202
>You will NEVER see 160F
I live in central AZ. my trunk exceeds that daily in the summer

>>33052508
>They remounted that one on a different gun and re-zero'ed it, nice try

So what? The rifle was probably fucked beyond repair.

>>33055848
It sells because of SOCOM. SOCOM uses it because the military acquisition process is complicated beyond reason. It makes some rather bizarre decisions because its metrics are overloaded with unnecessary complication. The product life cycle from CPD to solicitation can take years. The end result is that almost everything the military buys is only the "best" for some bizarre range of specifications that don't necessarily relate to the way the item is actually going to be used. If you're going to make your decisions based on other peoples' opinions, you're better off reading blogs and watching youtube than going off the military.

Acogs are more reliable, rugged, and proven.

>>33056184
Iraq mid summer got up there.

>>33049006

kerns

>>33055848
>the military approved it, so it must be good
It honestly astounds me that people still can't comprehend the monumental amounts of stupidity that runs amok in the military constantly. This is a special kind of naivety.

>>33053962
>Probably because
I.E you have no fucking clue.

>are you seriously arguing that Aimpoint optics have worse thermal drift
No, I'm suggesting if someone said that aimpoints have worse thermal drift their own anecdotes no one has any current public data to prove them wrong or that theirs is a fluke, and therefor people here claiming EOTechs are worse in that regard are full of shit since they have no idea themselves.

This whole show has literally been
>EOTech shills claim EOTechs are good since SOCOM uses them (they still do even now)
>Aimpoint shills claim EOTechs are trash since SOCOM sued them

>>33056190
>moving the goalpoasts.tiff

His claim was that it held zero during a house fire which was incorrect.. It managed to be just as functional as a gameboy can be through a house fire. You are correct that the gun was fucked, though, and the owner was unable to test for zero retention.

>>33056312
Why are foreign special operators using them so often? For instance you would be hard pressed to find Russian units even using 10% aimpoints versus their 90%+ EOTech usage. Because of ITAR they have to buy them for themselves to so it's 100% personal choice for them of what optic they use. You would think clearly superior aimpoints would be used more often being the clearly superior optic.

>>33058474
"Clearly superior" doesn't really exist here. The thing is that the guys who actually kill people with these things don't care about numbers. If you knew nothing at all about the drift problem (I can attest that almost none of the US Army SF guys know or care), didn't have to worry about them degrading because you could just get a new sight, and didn't have to pay for them, which would you choose? Aimpoints have a very narrow viewing window that makes them feel more restrictive at the typical "might as well stab them" engagement ranges of urban combat. The EOTech window is significantly larger, square, and not encumbered by a long tube. They're heavier, sure, but that hardly matters after all the other shit that ends up getting slapped on the gun. EOTechs are just more comfortable for them, so that's what they choose.

>>33058669
I'm of the same opinion as you. I'm just calling out the people who bash EOTech fanboys here because their only argument is "SOCOM uses them" while their only evidence is "SOCOM sued them."

It's just pure hypocrisy when most of them don't even have good anecdotal experience let alone any kind of actual test data. It's like a modern day tacticool fuddlore.

>>33058714
It's an idiotic argument all around. Who cares what ridiculously overpriced sight you buy? They ALL have the same problems, to different degrees. This applies to everything from the shitty little $100 sights, all the way up to the big boys. At the higher end of the price range, you're paying for qualities you don't need. All that SOCOM using something means is that you can jump out of a plane at 40k feet, then immediately swim to the bottom of a lake without breaking your sight.

>>33058714
I'd like to note here that SOCOM has the funding and smaller user base to justify buying twenty different sights so units can play around and find what they like.

> teh mehlitary uses it so is gud!
this thread is so fucking retarded jesus christ

>>33045801
Acog with rmr, more robust, better battery life, no need to push a button

>>33059740
The funny thing is SOCOM uses EOTechs+magnifiers as well as Elcan spectre while the gun community and FORSCOM shills/uses the aimpoints and acog+rmr.

It's funny how SOCOM is consistently using "bad" optics while the regular army units are getting the "better" ones.

>>33060139
even our military used Acogs and then switched officially to Elcan. Told an operator it was kinda retarded to have an Elcan on an SBR. He just looked at me weird :(

>>33058714
No, that's not they're only evidence as to it's shortcomings you cunt.

The suing has nothing to do with why people don't like EOTechs. Design shortcomings and just being massive fuckups as a company are why I dislike them.

No optic should change zero by that much at 120°. That's retarded.

4MOA means you're off a guys chest at 300 yards, and you don't have a chance in hell at 400 because you won't see where your rounds are impacting.

This is not a big deal for me, but you can imagine why that's disconcerting. Also, I think the 4.2 MOA number is bullshit, because some people were reporting exponentially larger changes.

>>33060146
Eh, I was support in an SF group and I only saw the Elcan once, while I was out at a team house adding a wan optimizer to their sat system. Most of us had ACOGs. In 2009.

>>33060146
MUH SF

Please stop this is getting so saddening.

File: IMG_20170219_190738.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>33048391
Feels good doesn't it?

>>33058714
>people only hate eotech because of a lawsuit
You are misrepresenting the arguments so fucking hard, just kill yourself please.
>>33058669
> very narrow viewing window
Of course you have no idea how touse a reddot properly.

File: drift.png (492KB, 1467x369px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 1467x369px

>>33060164
>>33060300
>The suing has nothing to do with why people don't like EOTechs.
It has everything to do with people calling them a shit optic even if they already preferred aimpoints. What was once a "I believe aimpoints are better for x,y,z reasons and I and many other people seem to think they are better made," turned into "EOTechs are categorically worse don't buy one ever - SOCOM sued!"

I actually just checked EOTechs site and saw that their numbers indicate EOTechs made after October 2016 have less shift than even Trijicon RMOs now. Are RMO's the most proven shit optic now?

>>33060186
I'm not even trying to validate SOCOM's choice of sights. The gun community at large generally only appreciates what happens to be nearly exclusively line unit optics and hates on most of SOCOM's sight procurement.

>>33060300
>Of course you have no idea how touse a reddot properly.
It makes a difference with bad cheek weld, magnification, and in the super rare case of needing to put a monocular behind it. Also some EOTechs have had damage occur to them (bullet through the window) and had it still was able to work in the more distant parts of the window away from the damage (which could also work if it got dirty too).

>>33060361
The fact nitrogen leaks and delamination are very real things with the entire line are enough for many to shit on them, to say nothing of their crap battery life and those dogshit adjustment buttons. The lawsuit over thermal drift is just a cherry on top of a shit L3 sundae.

>bad cheek weld
The degree of retardation required for a cheek weld to be so cocked an aimpoint is rendered unusable is funny to just comprehend
>magnification
People who use magnifiers on their RDs in this age of variable power optics deserve every bad thing Eotechs throw at them.
>monoculars
Why the fuck would someone who would have access to/typically use this subject themselves to that fuckawful setup and not use a PEQ?

>>33052508
except no, we didn't. Aimpoints were cheaper for most models and had better battery lives. even before the thermal drift meme, the 512, 553, and those ones with 2 batteries parallel to the rifle had issues with the battery contacts getting busted due to recoil.

>>33060513
>The fact nitrogen leaks and delamination are very real things
That's only on sights made before july 2014. I have had one of my older EOTechs have this issue. It was 2012 make and by 2015 I looked up the issue since it was happening to me and sent it back to EOTech and got it fixed for free outside of the warranty. None of my other sights made after then or the fixed one exhibit this issue.

Their battery life if you managed to somehow leave it on continuously (which isn't possible with auto off) will last you over one month. How long does any of your other mission equipment batteries last like your radio, NVG, flashlights, IR strobe, GPS, etc? Most of those will die well before the EOTech does. It represents one of the least battery consuming items in a soldier's inventory.

>The degree of retardation required for a cheek weld to be so cocked an aimpoint is rendered unusable is funny to just comprehend
The same argument can be made for iron sights too. The entire point of red dot optics is for slightly off axis aim with reduced parallax, single plane aiming apparatus, and night capabilities. EOTechs offer even more leniency with off axis aim, it literally can't even be a detriment.

>People who use magnifiers on their RDs in this age of variable power optics deserve every bad thing Eotechs throw at them.
>le magnifiers are bad may may

>Why the fuck would someone who would have access to/typically use this subject themselves to that fuckawful setup and not use a PEQ?
While going out of a FOB at night as an IR disco party is fun, plenty of adversaries have access to cheap and/or sophisticated NVG tech where passive IR aiming methods can be a good thing. Most of the time in the current year this is not an issue, however, it's something to always consider based on mission requirements and intel.

>>33060707
Actually, you're right. I was overstating the gun community's sentiments for EOTech. In general the criticism wasn't as harsh.

>>33060759
Okay I'm not going to beat around the bush.


Listen to yourself.

Just do it. Read what you're writing, you sound like a somewhat intelligent person and it shouldn't be difficult to establish just how flawed your logic is.

You've spent an entire thread defending 5-6 issues with EOTechs that, while one is CLAIMED to be fixed by EOTech, another pops up that is just as damning as the first.

I don't trust EOTech, and neither should you. A company that is constantly having to revise and recall designs instead of just doing proper R&D work and putting out products that works has absolutely no place in serious defensive firearms use.

I'm willing to bet money that new production EOTechs have some glaring oversight or failure like the past production runs have had. And honestly, I don't trust that they actually fixed the thermal shift issue.


EOTech is trash.

>>33060901
I've had the same amount of issues and seen the same amount of issues with both. I'm just not going around claiming one is better with what amounts to anecdotes and modern fuddlore.

I've had Comp M4 battery comparments get fucked on an issued unit from just normal wear and tear not even abusing it (they later moved the Comp M4 battery comparment from the top to the bottom of the tube). I then bought an XPS-2 which worked well for the longer part of my deployment (only to have that one get reticle fade in 2015). Seen power dials get snapped off, too.

Does an over-exposed battery compartment/power dial being moved sound like having to revise a design failure? It was never claimed as such by anyone in the gun community, so why is the same standard being applied to EOTech?

I've also seen a few Comp M4 that could be spun by hand inside their mounts and some that were just slightly shifted and shot to the side from rotating some. None of those issues apply to E/XPS series of EOTechs.

>EOTech is trash.
aw shit I fell for the bait :((((

I had a 552 that I had to send in twice to be rebuilt because of gas leaks/ faded reticle. I used the shit out of it in 3 gun with a flip to side magnifier. It was actually a pretty great setup for out to 400 yards. The durability issue is what killed my confidence in it. I have a 4x ACOG now with offset irons for inside 10 yards.

>>33049101
I kinda always started at 4 and moved out as needed, anything else was reflexive fire or 249 bros target. IDK what high speed dudes go for but National Guard is mostly BYOB for optics so we just purchased what we wanted from the local shop and had the wives mail us new shit to try. I wasn't a big fan of the super rugged optic idea anyway, I don't treat my weapon badly and a set of back up irons means I'm still shooting out to about 200 yards quickly

>>33052091
>person who gets kickbacks from Aimpoint likes Aimpoints more

WOAH

>>33048202
>You will NEVER see -60F in any realistic circumstance.
Montana is unrealistic. Gotcha.