Why all the hate on Eotech/magnifiers? Seems like the perfect setup?

It's not that it's a bad setup, it's just expensive- unless you get a Vortex or UTG magnifier, which you should instead of an Aimpoint or Eotech one, and the magnification doesn't give you any BDC, and when unmagnified you have a large, heavy and bulky thing hanging off the side of your weapon.

what is zero shift?

>>33248940
I don't hate the setup, it is just inferior to others.

A dedicated fixed or short variable scope with an offset mini red dot just does everything it does but better.

File: IMG_0019.jpg (253KB, 1255x710px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1255x710px

>>33248940
Heavy, clumsy, the magnifiers have shit eye relief, the magnifiers have relatively shit glass, way too expensive for what they are.

With the advent of so many good low power variable optics, there's not much reason to go the magnifier route. Contrary to popular belief, it's not quicker and you are getting worse glass, lower magnification and a lot of weight for the combined package.

File: Screenshot_20170306-202934.png (520KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 1440x2560px

Thanks for the feedback guys. That said I bought one anyways because they're just so aesthetic, and that reticle is amazing

>>33248953
Something every red dot has?

>>33249169
Whatever floats your boat man, it's not a bad setup by any means, especially with the ballistic reticle on that 3-4.

>>33249169
Get a 3-0, not a 3-4.

>>33249217
lol too late

>>33248960
youre only missing the 45 degree flip up sights and you got the ultimate mall-ninja weapon

>>33249169
>online-shopping with android
what is security?

File: 1419491969191.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>33249169
>exps3-4

> asks for advice
> ignores it because he saw it in the operator picture thread

Op confirmed FAGGOT

>>33248940
If you don't mind losing your zero during a breeze and a 100% extra weight from other optics, yeah it's fine

>>33248940
>Why all the hate on Eotech/magnifiers? Seems like the perfect setup?
It's a really good one. The hate is baseless "zero shift" and "muh weight" maymays that have no basis in reality.

>>33248968
>Heavy
Same weight as a vortex PST 1-4x with QD mount.

>clumsy
Easier to dial in than a adjustable ring, less easy than an RMR'ed ACOG

>shit eye relief
Better or equal to most ACOG units.

>>33248951
>It's not that it's a bad setup, it's just expensive
Hits the nail on the head. A cheap 1-4x will do most of the stuff an average user will need - just not as good, but good enough.

>>33249409
You can cancel your order or ask them to swap SKU's. Shouldn't be too hard for them to do.

>>33248960
>A dedicated fixed or short variable scope with an offset mini red dot just does everything it does but better.
You can simply buy one magnifier for all of your rifles and swap it from rifle to rifle or just take the damn thing off. A mini red dot isn't as competitive as a full sized dot is.

>Get a shitty sight with a host of issues and slap a magnifier behind it that cost as much as the optic itself so you can have a clunky 1x-3x setup when you could have paid just as much for a good variable-power optic with better glass and more magnification options
Golly gee...

File: IMG_0187.jpg (449KB, 1301x626px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 1301x626px

>>33250348
>Same weight as a vortex PST 1-4x with QD mount.
And capping out at 3x.

>Easier to dial in than a adjustable ring, less easy than an RMR'ed ACOG
I was talking more about having the damn thing slung to the side when using 1x and the general clumsiness of the unit

>Better or equal to most ACOG units.
I owned a gen 1 EOTech and have shot plenty with 2nd gen EOTech and Aimpoint units. I have also owned ACOG. This is absolutely a false statement.

>>33250410
>And capping out at 3x.
3.25x to be exact.

>I was talking more about having the damn thing slung to the side
Is a 45 degree offset T1 or mini RDS a clunky option in your opinion as well?

>gen1 and gen2...This is absolutely a false statement.
OP is buying gen 3. The G33 has better or equal eye relief to most ACOG units. Check it out for yourself.

>>33250465
I tried the offset route as well and was not a fan. I love me some low power variable.

As for the G33...I completely misread your original statement and somehow thought you were talking about glass quality/optical clarity and not eye relief because I am a potato. You are absolutely right about the eye relief, it's very similar to 4x ACOGs. Which is to say pretty shit, especially compared to most 1-4x, 1-6x and 1-8x low power variables.

All that said, end of the day use what floats your boat. Already said it's not a terrible setup and I think the aesthetic is pretty rad.

>>33250493
>I tried the offset route as well and was not a fan.
I'm assuming you think it's clumsy as well. Why do you feel that a magnifier or offset RDS to the side of a rifle is clumsy but not a Surefire?

>You are absolutely right about the eye relief, it's very similar to 4x ACOGs
It's 46% better than a TA31 and TA01.

>Already said it's not a terrible setup
You're right. You also regurgitated all the fun maymays that aren't true either. I'm just calling you out on it.

File: +65+62+62+62+.jpg (228KB, 908x1306px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 908x1306px

>>33250600
>maymays
Nah, I'm giving my .02 having owned and used ACOGs, magnifiers and low power variables relatively extensively.

That advertised 2.2" is not accurate from my experience. At least not to get a full lens worth of sight picture.

>....but not a surefire
Because a surefire is not offset at the rear of the rifle and fucking with my peripheral vision.

At this point I'm assuming you own a magnifier/red dot combo given how much you are defending them. If you like them, great, but they are outclassed by low power variables in most every regard.

Their only advantage over a fixed mag optic and piggy backed or offset red dot is the fact you don't have to cant the rifle and/or deal with different holderovers/unders and height over bore issues.

File: 02B.jpg (92KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1000x667px

>>33248951
Holosun offers BDC and motion-detected on/off with 50,000 hour battery life.

Outer ring can be turned off, or used for quick acquisition. I believe it also offers as a hold for running targets, and estimates 12 gauge buck spread at 25 yards.

File: _MG_7728.jpg (875KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

875KB, 1920x1280px

>>33250721
I've got the Holosun HS515BU with a Eotech type reticle, love it.

>>33250682
>That advertised 2.2" is not accurate from my experience.
That's because the G23 has less eye relief than the G33.

>>33250682
>Nah, I'm giving my .02 having owned and used ACOGs
You're stating factually incorrect things like that it weighs more than a comparable 1-4x setup.

>but they are outclassed by low power variables in most every regard.
What other than price and max magnification level?

>you don't have to cant the rifle and/or deal with different holderovers/unders and height over bore issues.
Sounds like both are clumsy in their own way.

The fun meme to say is that RDS+Mag is worse than a 1-4x or ACOG+RMR because they are both better options because of weight, eye relief, and clumsiness. 1-4x units with QD mounts weigh more than an XPS+G33. TA31's and TA01's have worse eye relief. 1-4x magnification dials and piggybacked RMRs are clumsy in their own right compared to a G33 magnifier. For how easily other configurations are recommended the traditional arguments used against a RDS+Mag don't make sense and are often baseless and prosaic statements that are literally memes of firearms "culture."

>>33250384
>tripfag spouting off mays mays

Golly Gee...

>>33250886
>I swear to God this Eotech + 3x Magnifier combo is as good as a 1-4x Trijicon Accupoint
Gas yourself you fucking mongoloid.

>>33250682
>>33250384
>>33250886
/k/ is for cancerous trips and shitposting.

I have a later EOtech (>2015) mounted on a Daniel defense. No magnifier.

The thing is an absolute laser with basic federal 55gr .223. Sounds like trips need to work on marksmanship fundamentals...

>>33250917
>criticized for lack of argument
>goes right to ad homs
Back to ARG with you!

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

2MB, 3984x2241px

>2017
>people are still falling for the red dot + magnifier meme
Sad!

>>33250943
Isn't that setup pretty much the same just more expensive?

File: WP_20170216_008[2].jpg (2MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x1728px

>>33250937
I can't wait for my EXPS3-0 to come in so I can shit all over it. Just for you. <3
>>33250940
>J-JUST AS GOOD
Gas yourself you fucking mongoloid.

File: 1488322096850.png (931KB, 800x770px) Image search: [Google]

931KB, 800x770px

>>33250943
>Tripfag calls on TIDF buddies to come in and propogate anti rds+mag memes
>fulfills the tripfag maymay prophecy

>>33248953
ALL FUCKING HOLO SIGHTS HAVE THERMAL DRIFT

you stupid fucking nogunz even aimpoints have it, around 3 or 4 MOA

Eotechs were just tested much further than most others.

>>33250988
>even aimpoints have it, around 3 or 4 MOA
Cite.

>>33250972
>Underfail dust cover
Kill yourself

File: toogayforhugoboss.png (77KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x500px

>>33250988
>Aimpoint
>Holo
I love anon.

File: 933.png (104KB, 534x548px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 534x548px

>>33250972

>>33251014
He's not wrong though. all sights, rifles and ammunition have thermal drift.

>>33251051
>Aimpoint
>Holo sight

>>33251014
i didn't say aimpoints were holos you stupid faggot, i did say they experience thermal drift, which is correct you fucking faggot.

>>33251072
>ALL FUCKING HOLO SIGHTS HAVE THERMAL DRIFT

you stupid fucking nogunz even aimpoints have it, around 3 or 4 MOA

This string of words does not imply that aimpoints are holosights.

>>33250999
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1184860

File: 1488829183646.png (32KB, 1172x675px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1172x675px

>>33251088
>>33251093
being this assmad on a malaysian yarn art board

>>33251014
why is that goat a /k/ meme, i'm lost

File: C4P6QegXAAAhy1T.jpg (35KB, 385x434px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 385x434px

>>33251107
>changing the subject

>>33251110
It's a meme because tripfags are incapable of substantial discussion. Thus in /ARG/ they just posted gay goat shit instead of a corresponding amount more of AR-15 pictures/discussion.

File: WP_20170214_002[1].jpg (2MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x1728px

>>33251088
>ALL HOLO SIGHTS HAVE THERMAL DRIFT
>even Aimpoint have it
You're so fucking stupid holy shit anon.
>>33251110
He is so pure and perfect that all cannot help but love him. <3
>>33251158
Post AR.

>>33251128
Y u mad? Just because Holo/RD and magnifier setup was BTFO?

>>33251208
>buys a case that costs a third as much as the rifle he puts in it
You're a fucking poser faggot

>>33251100
>A CalGuns thread with an undetailed chart based off of a video that doesn't exist anymore
Wow

File: WP_20170110_004[1].jpg (1MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x1728px

>>33251051
Know what my Aimpoint MD doesn't have? Risk of delamination and nitrogen leakage and a battery life measured in a mere four figures. :^
>>33251227
Actually the case is worth a quarter. Of my optic and mount setup. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

File: disagreement-hierarchy.jpg (117KB, 1070x666px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1070x666px

>>33251209
>>33251208
Feel free to make an argument that doesn't rely on being a brand whore. Feel extra free to use numbers and facts, too.

>>33251238
The video still exists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKlJX5wCwL4&t=8s

>>33251254
Know what my Aimpoint MD doesn't have? Risk of delamination and nitrogen leakage and a battery life measured in a mere four figures. :^

Nitrogen leaks haven't been a thing for 3 years.

>>33251281
And they were never a thing for Aimpoints, ever. Post your AR you assmad cockwrangler.

>>33251208
If I saw someone with a case like that at a range I wouldn't even make eye contact with xim/xer for fear of him starting to sperg about Zelda

>>33251326
Good, I want normies to leave me alone.

Help, I got cancer after using an ACOG

File: teargoat.png (83KB, 489x553px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 489x553px

>>33251337
Oh no! I guess you're going to have to use the suboptimal shitpit that is an Eotech + 3x magnifier!

>>33251310
>And they were never a thing for Aimpoints, ever

It was also never discussed about any RDS prior to the SOCOM lawsuit ever. No one here or anywhere in the gun "community" was able to figure it out for themselves.

There isn't any publicly available data for something like a PRO or T1 regarding thermal drift proving that it does not thermally shift. The only publicly available data is that youtube video test that found aimpoints have thermal drift worse than EOTech, RMO, and fucking holosun. There is publicly available data from both EOTech and Trijicon proving the EOTech and Trijicon RMO both have comparable thermal drift.

Why can't anons ever post their ARs?

>>33251376
Oh that's great, I guess all I'm going to have to worry about with my EXPS3-0 is delamination and the fuckawful battery life! Thanks anon, can't wait!

>>33251392
because they don't have one

File: WP_20170107_007[1].jpg (2MB, 1728x3072px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1728x3072px

>>33251392
Because they know they have fuckawful setups because they're the kind of subhuman retard that still uses Eotechs + magnifiers. Hence why spergy mcgee won't post any pics, just incessantly bend over backwards defending a company facing a federal lawsuit for shitty QC and lying about it.

The day my Eotech comes is going to be a great one. <3

I have an eotech + magnifier on my tavor and it's my only complaint about the gun, bloody annoying to use

>>33251396
OP won't have to since it would be made after 2014.

>>33251392
>>33251396
Why can't tripfags refute the central point of my argument? It should be quite easy if Aimpoints are so readily better.

>>33251449
Post your AR you hand-wringing L3 kike.

>>33251392
Hard for them to post what they don't have

>>33251452
Post an argument with actual facts and you will get to see my AR. I'll let you know that its configuration is not what you expect.

>>33251465
>Post an argument with actual facts
The Eotech's battery life is shit and L3 facing a lawsuit over issues that Aimpoint products don't have. Post your AR.

File: 20170225_144250_resized.jpg (629KB, 1437x808px) Image search: [Google]

629KB, 1437x808px

>>33251449
>battery life
>no worry about delamination
>Aimpoint didn't knowingly and intentionally cover up an issue without any effort to solve it while continuing sales to the military, law enforcement, and civilians alike.

Post your AR

>>33251481
>>33251489
A vortex 1-4x PST has worse battery life.

>issues that Aimpoint products don't have
Prove it. This is not a validated fact. The current evidence even says aimpoints have worse thermal drift. I'd even say that aimpoints have worse parallax, but I cannot prove that at the moment.

>delam
Fixed 3 years ago.

>>33251510
>Fixed 3 years ago.
prove it

File: Capture3PNG.png (196KB, 959x174px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 959x174px

>>33251516

File: 1488828936860.jpg (44KB, 699x485px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 699x485px

>>33251524
I'm sure they would never lie

>>33251510
>A vortex 1-4x PST has worse battery life.
Jesus, there was an attempt at least...

Are you ever going to post your AR?

>>33251543
Hey, they lied to the federal government, but surely they wouldn't mislead their loyal civilian clientele! Want to take wagers on what anon's AR build is like (if it even exists at all)?

>>33251551
Anon trying to justify a bad purchase? Why I never...

File: 20160601_125456.jpg (1MB, 2322x4128px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2322x4128px

>>33251544
How can you shit on an EOTech for having a bad battery life while simultaneously suggesting 1-4x optics that have worse battery life? That's not a consistent argument.

>>33251543
>>33251551
>>33251590
Trijicon did the same thing with the RMO, fortunately for them the RMO isn't used in any government contracts. Trijicon had to go back, test theirs, and then release the data after the SOCOM suit. Why wouldn't aimpoint release their data like Trijcon did even if there is zero shift to prove that their sight is better?

I also have a 10.5" build with no optic or irons for my HD gun :^) the pictures are on my hard drive back in the states

>>33251640
>inb4 slipring

Already changed it to A1 style.

>>33250384
It could be worse, I could have the poverty model, non NV capable aimpoint...

File: naw.png (115KB, 1023x766px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1023x766px

>>33251640
>the most tryhard AK on the entire boards with a shitty A1 clone attempt that can't even get the fucking slip ring right
I'm not even surprised, honestly.

>How can you shit on an EOTech for having a bad battery life while simultaneously suggesting 1-4x optics that have worse battery life?
Because that has no bearing whatsofucking ever on me saying the Eotechs have dogshit battery life and even if it did the 1-4x I suggested was a fucking Trijicon Accupoint that's powered by fiber-optic and tritium you inbred.
>no optic or irons for my HD gun
You are such a fucking retard, no wonder you love L3 so much.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (271KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1920x1080px

>>33251640
>Zenitco everything

File: WP_20160803_006[1].jpg (3MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3072x1728px

>>33251655
> the poverty model
I'm confused, the H-2 is more expensive than the T-1 and H-1...

>>33249217
I like my tan 3-2 but yeah I could see a 3-4 being too busy. I probably wouldn't be able to pick out the other dots due to my astigmatism.

File: Reticles.jpg (652KB, 1024x390px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 1024x390px

>>33251741
> I could see a 3-4 being too busy
I could handle the 3-2 even though the tan 3-0 is what I'm getting but in no way can I see how the 3-4 is desirable.

>>33251673
You missed >>33251652
Not even surprised, honestly.
It's also a surplus colt parts kit. That came with a broken slip ring spring.

The vast majority of 1-4x optics have worse battery life than EOTechs, yet everyone is eager to recommend them while claiming EOTechs have shit battery life. The average user will get a year or more of use out of their rifle and the people that use it every day will still get 2 months of run time assuming 12 hours of use per day every day and have to deal with devices that have an orders of magnitude less battery life than an EOTech does.

>actually aiming inside your house instead of reflexive fire

>>33251705
>doesn't even have a class III IR laser
>probably has 6061 extruded and plastic accessories

>>33251777
>It's also a surplus colt parts kit
That you wasted on an A2 lower like a complete pleb.
>The vast majority of 1-4x optics have worse battery life than EOTechs, yet everyone is eager to recommend them while claiming EOTechs have shit battery life.
Good thing I recommended one that cost on average less than or as much as an Eotech+Magnifier setup that had FO and Tritium then, you dipshit.

File: 1486782219234.jpg (38KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 657x527px

Why are EOKek owners so defensive?

>>33251755
>Meanwhile at the Eotech meeting: You know Bill, these Eotechs we've been making just seem to simple and easy to look through in a split second. Let's add a fuckload of extra dots to slow the mS reaction time down a bit.

>>33251798
No, I used an authentic anderson lower receiver. It has the pony just like the real thing!

And I'm sure you wouldn't or haven't ever recommended the other 1-4x lower battery life options over the EOTech+Mag configuration ever.

>Tritium
And in the time it takes an old EOTech to have reticle fade the Trijicon's tritium will be closing in on its half life. It's a bit of an asinine point but it was a point brought against the older EOTech's reticle fading over time. Kind of ironic, don't you think? You're right about the battery issue, though.

>average less than or as much
You could feasibly buy a single magnifier and swap it among several guns and save money over the trijicon. You also have to buy a mount for the trijicon, too. You would buy a once-piece QD mount right?

>>33248940
1-X scopes are the future my man.

>>33250962
yes

>>33251899
> It has the pony just like the real thing!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>33251942
The future is now.

>>33252187
So what is it? Is reticle fade a non issue now? Are <100 hour battery life alternative 1-4x scopes legitimately better than no battery life 600 hour EOTechs? I'm just trying to get some consistency in the arguments against EOTechs.

I don't have much bad to say about people buying aimpoints/trijicons/etc over EOTechs alone. I just see a lot of inconsistencies in the arguments of promoting magnified optics against an magnifier setup.

>>33251850
The only one sperging out in this thread is the tripfag who's only way of "debating" is to spout off memes

>>33251899
>And in the time it takes an old EOTech to have reticle fade the Trijicon's tritium will be closing in on its half life
What the fuck are you even arguing here?

>>33252446
>doesn't understand nuclear physics

Tritium loses its mass over time and becomes less luminous. Old EOTechs are not guaranteed to have their reticle delaminate and fade from moisture incursion. When they did it happened slowly over time and they became less bright. To criticise EOTech for having reticles that sometimes fade while simultaneously suggesting an optic that uses tritium which is guaranteed to fade is not a consistent argument.

>>33252483
>To criticise EOTech for having reticles that sometimes fade while simultaneously suggesting an optic that uses tritium which is guaranteed to fade is not a consistent argument.
I think you entirely missed the point honestly. The context of the suggestion is completely different and doesn't really figure in to the criticisms of delamination Eotechs had. The tritium optic was presented as a same-cost alternative to a setup that had a relatively limited battery life and was objectively less versatile and effective for what it was designed to do. Advocating that does not in any way ignore tritium half-life. That's just performing logical gymnastics on your part.

File: urahahaha.jpg (228KB, 801x702px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 801x702px

>>33252282
> Is reticle fade a non issue now? Are <100 hour battery life alternative 1-4x scopes legitimately better than no battery life 600 hour EOTechs?
Holy shit I actually think you have mental issues.
>>33252446
He's genuinely deluded.

>>33252556
>Advocating that does not in any way ignore tritium half-life
Yes it does. He literally criticized reticle fade as he moved the goalposts when I demonstrated from all available data that aimpoints have some of the worst thermal shift of red dots on the market.

>objectively less versatile
Nigger, what? For two rifles you can equip them with two XPS2 and one G33 magnifier for a combined cost of 1420 USD while two trijicon accupoints would cost 1800 without mounts. An RDS+mag is literally modular as in you can take the magnifier off and have a true 1x optic with parallax compensation and no added weight of magnifying components if you don't want them. You can even get an XPS3 and get an RDS that is compatible with NVGs for passive IR aiming at night if you don't want to use a laser still at a cheaper cost with two equipped rifles. The Trijicon accupoint gives you .75x more magnification, no true 1x, and no batteries required. That's it. It's a mixed bag. There's pros and cons to each, not just "one mo betta."

All of his criticisms of EOTechs factor into the recommendation of alternative optics. His criticisms certainly fit into the context of "buy this instead of the EOTech+mag."

>>33252616
Haha, I forgot that reticle fade of trijicon and other tritium-based illumination products can't be criticized the same way that reticle fade of EOTechs can. Your ad-hom completely refuted my point once again.

>>33252791
>All of his criticisms of EOTechs factor into the recommendation of alternative optics.
> I forgot that reticle fade of trijicon and other tritium-based illumination products can't be criticized the same way that reticle fade of EOTechs can
>A Trijicon Accupoint has literally all of the same issues as an Eotech and magnifier setup and the inherent physical properties of this isotope are directly comparable to a manufacturing defect like delamination
I don't think you realize how much of a fucking retard you are making yourself out to be, but please don't stop.

I guess this thread proves it

When you get Eotech you're not buying an optic you're paying your way into a cult

>>33252836
If you make two statements:
1: Product X is bad for reason R
2: Buy product Y instead of product X.

How does the first statement not corroborate your second statement?

>It's ok if a product in effect always does the same thing as the other sometimes does if the manufacturer planned for it from the start.

>>33251376
>It was also never discussed about any RDS prior to the SOCOM lawsuit ever. No one here or anywhere in the gun "community" was able to figure it out for themselves.

You're full of shit. There were plenty of people who were disillusioned with Eotech's performance years before the bubble burst - on firearm forums, review sites and even on /k/.
It's just that every time anyone brought up an issue with any Eotech device, retarded brand whores like you (most of whom didn't even own one) started shitting and pissing themselves and repeating their "MUH SOCOM!!" mantra over and over until the thread was sagebombed (or in the case of arfcom the complaining user was banned because if you want to question their pet brands, then you better be ready to face the consequences that usually include being swarmed by angry old men who think their 2-year history in the National Guard makes them experts on everything firearm-related, period).

>>33248940
Cuz it's QC took a nose dive and hasn't recovered yet. Just buy a trijicon.

>>33252935
>1: Product X is bad for reason R
I said an Eotech was bad because it had shit battery life, a history of flaws that included delamination, and was inferior to an optic that didn't have a history of delamination and could be powered for years on end on its source. Somehow, your impaired noodle interpreted that as me recommending an optic that had a history of delamination and shit battery life (protip; neither are things that apply to the Accupower line) and that all of those issues applied to it just as they did the Eotech. You didn't take into account anything like the time of eventual failure, the nature of the failure, or anything really. An Accupower losing its Tritium power after a fucking decade doesn't equate to an Eotech becoming worthless because the goddamned laminate gets cocked and can't reflect the reticle properly

Take a good, long look at the kind of bullshit you're trying to pull out of your ass and make a case with. You aren't well. Seek help. I have a strong feeling this isn't the first time someone has told you this here.

>>33251640
can i have another pic of that AK? Man that's beautiful

>>33252978
Of course people didn't like them for all kinds of reasons from the start but not thermal shift. I just did a google search from Jan 1 2010 to Jan 1 2015 and see zero results that actually discuss any kind of thermal shift for the eotech. No one was able to document thermal shift until SOCOM did it for them. Delamination was a known issue as looked up the symptom and I sent a site of mine in for free repair outside of its warranty in January of 2015.

>>33253020
Everyone else is recommending the worse battery life optics. I know in this case you are suggesting only the trijicon accupoint. What I'm implying is that you probably have, like many others in this argument, recommended a battery illuminated 1-4x optic that had worse battery life over an EOTech+mag. If you have never done so then you would be consistent. However, I have a feeling that you may have done so in the past like many others.

If a current production EOTech were to be continously powered it would have 1/144th the use life off of a single CR123A battery compared to the Trijicon's Tritium half life (1 month vs 12 years). An average use case of an EOTech will probably only require a dozen batteries for the same 12 year use case or 72 or for a 12 hours a day/365 days a year use case. A current production EOTech at 12 years will only require another battery change, the Trijicon will have to be sent back to the manufacturer and they will charge you a fee to replace the tritium. In a sense that could be considered battery life as the tritium is unable to emit luminescent energy at the intensity it was able to before . The Accupoint benefits from only needing the tritium in dark conditions.

The effect of accupoints design having its low light illumination source fade after some time in effect is similar to the EOTech reticle fading over time. The EOTech will not work in bright conditions but work fine at night while the inverse is true of the accupoint.

>>33253341
Cont.

This of course is only true of old EOTechs. New production ones will only need a new battery at 12 years.

So it's not a clear cut case of one being categorically better than the other. There's pros and cons to both. It's up to the customer to decide what features or emphasis they want on their optic. There isn't an objectively better one.

I have an eokek, and after having owned one I don't like it very much. It's too hard to see against a light target when it's bright out. Good for some things though.

>>33253341
> What I'm implying is that you probably have, like many others in this argument, recommended a battery illuminated 1-4x optic that had worse battery life over an EOTech+mag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Deg7VrpHbM

>>33253432
>right back to the ad hom memes

You have to go back
>33250150

>>33253442
>>33250150

>>33253442
You could just simply say, no I haven't nor would I ever have.

File: Seek_medical_help.png (307KB, 633x467px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 633x467px

>>33253442
>However, I have a feeling that you may have done so in the past

>>33253470
My reasoning is that if your argument hinges on literally saying
>You didn't say this thing, but I suspect you have in the past
then you're beyond having a critical discussion with and warrant nothing but snarky shitposts with accompanying macros.

File: 1415852430926.jpg (423KB, 800x1058px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 800x1058px

>>33253500
I just find that unlikely, that's all. Everyone I've come across that did not recommend the EOTech+mag thought a battery illuminated 1-4x was a better idea. Those same people also recommend aimpoints because EOTech battery life was insufficient in their opinion. You would be the first one I have come across that does not or has not advocated a battery powered 1-4x illuminated optic over an EOTech+mag while simultaneously criticizing EOTechs battery life.

File: 1488860476340.png (138KB, 240x329px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 240x329px

According to EOTech's site, all sights manufactured after 8/2016 are a lot better in terms of thermal shift?

" For sights manufactured after October 2016, the typical shift will be between approximately 1.4 and 1.8 minutes of angle (“MOA”). "

IIRC that's about the same as the Trijicon MRO, which is pretty good. But has anybody done any testing with new EoTechs? How do we know the company isn't blowing smoke up people's asses again

>>33253748
It's just a niche interest. No one has even conducted a well done aimpoint thermal drift yet, so I doubt we will see one anytime soon. I'd love to see more data in all of this.

>>33253776

Yeah, it seemed like after the whole lawsuit made the news everybody was coming out of the woodwork to say preposterous shit like "I zeroed my bruh's eotech and a week later it was 20moa off"

I read about an actual independent test done somewhere at an optics lab and they were only able to get a maximum of <2moa shift

>>33250988
Eotechs are just worse than the others. Mro was tested for thermal drift and between extremes it was a 1.9 moa shift not the 16 that Eotechs had.

File: drift.png (377KB, 964x331px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 964x331px

>>33253886
I agree that it just added fuel to the fire about the gun community's perception of the EOTech, which was already losing out to aimpoint at the time.

The lawsuit which was stating ridiculous MOA divergence values was factoring in other issues compounding it like off angle sight picture creating additional parallax on top of thermal drift as well.

EOTechs have a larger sight picture so there's more parallax opportunity to correct for in the sight. A T1 might not even be physically capable of having such an egregious parallax issues since it can only offer less degree of off axis aiming. This doesn't mean the EOTech performs worse in correcting the same amount of parallax both sights can incur.

I'd love to see a test on this specific function against T1, CompM4 size sights, as well as an EOTech and see which brand can correct for parallax the best among similar off axis viewing angles.

>>33253982
New EOTechs actually perform better than RMOs do.

Is Optics Planet a good retailer?

>>33254088
Yes they are perfectly fine. They even have exclusive specific models of various optics usually labled "OPMOD."

>>33253500
>>33253621
Also just to continue my point. You're welcome at any time to honestly say that you do not or have not suggested 1-4x battery illuminated optics.

>>33248940
Meh. They're OK. Eotech is just way fucking overpriced and you can do just as good or better for less money.

College poorfag who spent most of my AR money on the rifle and didn't have much left over for a red dot ect but a few hundred USD. Would a 512 be a bad move? I looked st both an Eotech and Aimpoint at my lgs and found the Eotech easier to see.

>>33254286
If you want an EOTech get the XPS2-0. It is the better model and only costs like 20 dollars more.

I would recommend a holosun or or primary arms for a budget gun. They are a much better deal.

>>33254333
>xPS2
Thanks anon I'll check it. Also dem trips.

>>33254183
>You're welcome at any time to honestly say
How about this; I honestly say you need to suckstart your shitty attempt at an A1 clone for having the shittiest debating ability this board has seen all year, 'kay? :^

>>33254707
>avoiding the fact that you probably held two contradictory opinions

I bet you don't even have a proper period cleaning kit with LSA in it.

File: killyourselfmygoatman.png (6KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 480x480px

>>33254744
I didn't even know the Accupoint was a thing until John Wick 2 came out because the only optics I have ever owned have been red dots , a 50 year old Colt optic, and a repro PU on the shittiest 91/30 ever squirted out by the USSR.

Seriously, get help and then off yourself.

>>33254982
>avoiding the question again
Have you recommended a battery powered 1-4x scope over an eotech+mag? It's a simple question. I don't care about what guns/scopes you own.

File: Trijicon tr24-3.jpg (484KB, 1598x831px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 1598x831px

>>33254982

File: Debating-Workshop.jpg (31KB, 851x315px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 851x315px

>>33253621

Anyone here have experience with the Vortex Holo sight?