I have to agree with both Stoner99 and mebiuspower. There is a lot more to this topic than whats mentioned here. And there are still numerous units around the world using EOTech Optics for a variety of very valid reasons. In the interests of transparency, I have both professional and personal time behind both EOTech and Elcan Specter DRs. I have only personal time behind Aimpoint Optics.
Kidd X, I can certainly understand the sentiment when you refer to doing business with a company that doesn't disclose issues, is like doing business with a snake. You certainly are correct. I suspect however, that the bulk of the "higher end" and well known companies are very much guilty of the same thing to one extent or another. I'm referring to basically the "pumping up" operational specifications for the purposes of commercial benefit. For example, to date Aimpoint advertises their T1 Micro as being "1X (non-magnifying) parallax free optic". I urge you, and everyone here to navigate to their website and see that claim for yourself. Its the third bullet point down on the right at Aimpoint's site page concerning the T1 Micro. Both governmental, and Independent industry testing has shown that claim to be absolutely false. You can find one such independent industry test here:
https://www.greeneyetactical.com/2017/07/27/comparative-study-of-red-dot-sight-parallax/ This particular test found an
average parallax "deviation of 9.678492518 MOA from all distances and tests". Regardless, Aimpoint soldiers on and sells to whomever might open their wallets, agency, armed professional, or civilian consumer; all while maintianing that their product is "Parallax free". I'm aware of at least one DND test that found similar results. Not to mention, one could potentially make the argument that parallax deviation would pose more of an impact on the bulk of all end-user shooting than the dreaded thermal drift... Particularly the level of deviation indicated in the report linked above...
There undoubtedly have been issues with EOTech optics. Personally, I would suggest with confidence though that those issues either aren’t present, or at minimum aren't prevalent with
current production "EXPS" variant optics. I think it's important to realize that, although most EOtechs look similar, they don't all share the same architecture. An "XPS" is substantially different from an "EXPS" in terms of design, components, and environmental operational specs; just as "512" is different from a "552" or "558". This needs to be kept in mind with respect to end-user level experience... For instance, with respect to Sparrow's post (#14)
"My Depts. XPS Eotechs could not make it through a week long carbine operator course". I won't challenge what his department's experiences were with that XPS Optic; that may very well be... I would however (if he named the model of the optic correctly here), challenge his departments decision to buy a consumer level or grade product for professional use... I speak from experience when I say certain LE Agencies provide very harsh environments for equipment. We roast our carbines and optics in sun bathed vehicles in the summer, and freeze them in the winter... Weapons are shared, used, and abused by a variety of officers in numerous, deployments, warrants, training courses and scenarios. The Optics I use professionally appear as if they've been used to scrape paint off a block wall; be that as it may, they work... What I'm getting at is that I can't fathom the thought process that would lead an Agency Rep to purchase a consumer grade product for that level of use... I suppose I'm fortunate, my agency has never done so. Perhaps it's no coincidence, we haven't had any issue such as that mentioned in Sparrow's post. What I'm also getting at here is that relying on consumer level experience and feedback with respect to some EOTech models, and blanketing the entire line is like judging ones experience with a Leupold VX-1 and painting the the Mark 8 line with the same brush... They're simply not the same thing.
Lastly, when I say I agree with Stoner99 that there's a lot more to this topic... There's a lot more to this topic... the bulk of the issues experienced by certain military branches (namely in the U.S.) center around the architecture of the 553 or SU-231/PEQ NSN: 1240-01-533-0941. Yep, the Old battery compartment design, and use of ARMS mounts was just bad... Yep, shame on EOTech, It was a poor execution surrounding a US requirement to use AA batteries and a QD mount. The solution to the bulk of these issues was to simply move on to the latest technology in the EXPS3 line. That solution was simply rejected by the U.S. government as indicated numerous times in their own civil suit. Additionally, much of the internet fervor surrounding these optics stems from the Statement of Claim by the US Government in their civil action. Objectively speaking, as damning as that document may seem, it's literally one side of this whole argument/topic (and as all statement of claims are, slanted to suit the interests of the plaintiff). All this being said, its a fact, EOTechs are still being used by numerous agencies and units globally with success; even still with those units where much of this controversy stemmed from to begin with!..... go figure. Why? Well..., from what I know, there's a lot more to that topic too....
