Opinion on aimpoint optics
- Thread starter copeland
- Start date
Just curious, what make are they and what do they look like on an AR?
I personally like the Eotech's much better then the Aimpoints. However the problem with the Eotech's is that Dave's Surplus can't get them in any more because of the US State Department. You can buy them, but that means no warrenty.
When I buy something, having a warrenty is a big selling point to me. So, that leaves me with the only option of using a Comp M4 along with a mag device. Nothing wrong with that choice either, as I said I just perfer the Eotech.
Whoever said Eotech's arn't serious "combat sights" that must have been a joke.
When I buy something, having a warrenty is a big selling point to me. So, that leaves me with the only option of using a Comp M4 along with a mag device. Nothing wrong with that choice either, as I said I just perfer the Eotech.
Whoever said Eotech's arn't serious "combat sights" that must have been a joke.
You have to take everything koalorka says as 35% serious content, 35% sarcasm, 30% purely contrarian bs.
I know plenty of guys with a lot of trips to the middle east - both as public servants and as private sector individuals - who take the Eotech as their first choice on a fighting rifle.
I believe the Aimpoint/Eotech argument to be similar to the rack/release argument...there are people who will tell you there is only one answer. Some of them are highly trained, some of them are not. Not all the highly trained guys feel the same way, not all the untrained guys understand this. There are also people who will tell you there is no answer.
I do not know if there is an answer but I know enough to know that if there is an answer, there isn't an automatic, obvious one.
I have used Aimpoints and I think they are very good. I find the Eotech faster to acquire, and as one of my gunfighting SOB friends is fond of saying, "being first is being alive." There are arguments for both optics, although if Eotech can not or will not do warranty stuff for Canadians then that is definitely something to think about.
I know plenty of guys with a lot of trips to the middle east - both as public servants and as private sector individuals - who take the Eotech as their first choice on a fighting rifle.
I believe the Aimpoint/Eotech argument to be similar to the rack/release argument...there are people who will tell you there is only one answer. Some of them are highly trained, some of them are not. Not all the highly trained guys feel the same way, not all the untrained guys understand this. There are also people who will tell you there is no answer.
I do not know if there is an answer but I know enough to know that if there is an answer, there isn't an automatic, obvious one.
I have used Aimpoints and I think they are very good. I find the Eotech faster to acquire, and as one of my gunfighting SOB friends is fond of saying, "being first is being alive." There are arguments for both optics, although if Eotech can not or will not do warranty stuff for Canadians then that is definitely something to think about.
I have the answer = Trijicon TA01NSN-DOC. Your good to go, best combination ever! Whatever version suits you.
No but really I would have to say what ever your preference is, I like the eotech's for better target acquisition but I prefer the aimpoint for the overall winner.
No but really I would have to say what ever your preference is, I like the eotech's for better target acquisition but I prefer the aimpoint for the overall winner.
I honestly don't understand this combo. For the same price you could get a shortdot or other 1-4 power optic that would remove the issues of muscle memory and combat stress in CQB. I think 1% of CGNers understand CQB and only lalf of those guys can tell you about combat stress and what it does to your ability to work multiple height optic setups etc.
In the harsh lights of reality I think the ACOG/DocOp setup has no benefit other then adding extra weight, bulk and complexity to your rig.
Also, from the civilian perspective why would you want to buy something the US state dept won't even let you send down for repairs? Personally I suggest we support those who support us. Its the whole give and take thing.
Well coming from "Real World Experience" I find it to be the best combo for that rifle, or any other system for a carbine (intermediate rifle). As for extra weight? a Docter sight weighs what?
If its just CQB? fine then i get your point, otherwise you need something more versatile.
To each their own.
The ACOG-DR was fine in the pre 911 world - we learned a lot about gunfighting since then. Its a poor compromise in this day and age.
In an Armed Entity you don't live in a vacuum, you have teammates, thus one guy running a gun with a Short Dot can help pick targets at range, detecting and descriminating, for those with CCO's
My first experience with EO (then Bushnell Holosight) was likely way before anyone on this board, down in Ft Lewis on a friend in 1SFG's M4
I will admit till this day on a timer I am faster with the EO reticle. However my experience in Iraq and Afghanistan with the failure rates of EO's, leads me to believe that unless one is in a unit that can afford to replace the sight each month, that they are not a viable combat sight.
Both BigRed and I where issued Eo's and we ran Short Dots and Aimpoints --
In an Armed Entity you don't live in a vacuum, you have teammates, thus one guy running a gun with a Short Dot can help pick targets at range, detecting and descriminating, for those with CCO's
My first experience with EO (then Bushnell Holosight) was likely way before anyone on this board, down in Ft Lewis on a friend in 1SFG's M4
I will admit till this day on a timer I am faster with the EO reticle. However my experience in Iraq and Afghanistan with the failure rates of EO's, leads me to believe that unless one is in a unit that can afford to replace the sight each month, that they are not a viable combat sight.
Both BigRed and I where issued Eo's and we ran Short Dots and Aimpoints --
It's the 553s and maybe 557s that do not have warranty here because they aren't officially exported to Canada. That combined with their reputation of having a tendency to go tits up was my biggest reason for sticking to Aimpoint.
Us State department has nothing to do with Eotech as far as I know, please correct me if i'm wrong. If i'm right, then Eotech does support us Canadians, it's just US state wont let them out, or back in. Nothing to do with supporting us.
exactly.
This state dept BS has gotten way out of control. It is now how you treat your friends.
EOTech might have a bit better reticle, quicker to find than the Aimpoint. The Aimpoint is tougher, way better battery life and cold weather performance.
I too have seen a great number of Eotech's fail on the range. Many more than Aimpoints.
I like toughness and reliability over a slightly superior reticle
One unit I trained with is taking Eotechs off their Colt Canada CQB's and going with iron sights.
Rich
I too have seen a great number of Eotech's fail on the range. Many more than Aimpoints.
I like toughness and reliability over a slightly superior reticle
One unit I trained with is taking Eotechs off their Colt Canada CQB's and going with iron sights.
Rich
F22_RaptoR
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Edmonton, Alberta
I have had 2 aimpoints, both worked 100% all the time.
I sold my ML3 for a T1, and its been the epitome of reliable.
I have PERSONALLY seen 2 EOTech's go belly up. One kept on eating batteries (even though it was turned off. This is the signature EOTech problem) and another one (also ate batteries) wouldn't hold properly onto the picatinny rail.
There are numerous problems with the battery compartment (contact failure, battery draining when sight is off), problems with the rail clamp (a little less common), problems with the sight holding zero, and with the new 557's, problems with the reticle itself.
All the problems are fairly rare, but the number of different problems that PERSIST even after the Revision F, is scarry.
Yes, it is "new" technology, and it WILL gain reliability over time... But right now there is a treasure trove of problems with the EOTechs, that MAY happen.
Aimpoints... The ONLY time you will hear people complain about them, is with the dots being blurry, usually due to an astigmatism, or other eye problems.
AND the Aimpoint M4s is the new US Army CCO, NOT the EOtech
I sold my ML3 for a T1, and its been the epitome of reliable.
I have PERSONALLY seen 2 EOTech's go belly up. One kept on eating batteries (even though it was turned off. This is the signature EOTech problem) and another one (also ate batteries) wouldn't hold properly onto the picatinny rail.
There are numerous problems with the battery compartment (contact failure, battery draining when sight is off), problems with the rail clamp (a little less common), problems with the sight holding zero, and with the new 557's, problems with the reticle itself.
All the problems are fairly rare, but the number of different problems that PERSIST even after the Revision F, is scarry.
Yes, it is "new" technology, and it WILL gain reliability over time... But right now there is a treasure trove of problems with the EOTechs, that MAY happen.
Aimpoints... The ONLY time you will hear people complain about them, is with the dots being blurry, usually due to an astigmatism, or other eye problems.
AND the Aimpoint M4s is the new US Army CCO, NOT the EOtech
im not going to pick a side here, as i think both are great sights, but you have to take the info that you are given, eotechs are having problems. aimpoints do not, nor can i find really any viable info that says they really have any. aimpoints are from sweden, so thats why theres no problem with warrenty, or customer care. eotechs are hard to get from the us , also if there is a warrenty problem getting it back to them and back to you. just aint happening. (ie ,like daves fiasco) warrenty is a big selling point for me.
but i have only one question. why would you need to get the night vision capable models ? like really what do they do better than the others, when your never going to be able to use the night vision mode. unless london drugs started selling NV goggles that im not aware of .
ps, that last question was for non mil / leo
but i have only one question. why would you need to get the night vision capable models ? like really what do they do better than the others, when your never going to be able to use the night vision mode. unless london drugs started selling NV goggles that im not aware of .
ps, that last question was for non mil / leo
F22_RaptoR
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Edmonton, Alberta
you CAN get night vision goggles, although I dont know if you can get more recent than Gen1. Maybe Gen2. I am almost positive that Gen 3 is controlled by the US Dept. of state.
In any case, the NV ability is not big deal IMHO, the only reason I got the Aimpoint T1, is that it has a type-3 hardcoat anodized finish, rather than the type-2 finish that the H1 has.
