It's Not Just Eotechs.

r34skyline said:
The elcan c79 is trash. This conversation had nothing to do with it. I'm pretty sure this is an comparo between holographic/reflex/red dot non magnified optics. Namely aimpoint vs eotech.
Click to expand...

The thread isn't about FBI or SOF either, but the comparisons still stand. I would take my so called trash EOTech over the so called battle proven C79 any day of the week.
 
AFisher said:
You are. VERY Clearly. A few doorkickers and actual experts have voiced their expert opinion, and you just regurgitate the same old information that we all already know that is OLD news and has been sorted by L3. The FACT is, tests prove drift happens to ALL reddots (some more than the Eo), and there are multiple reasons our SOF and US SOF teams run this L3 optic still to this day. If you don't like certain points, thats totally fair, but don't act like Aimpoints don't have their own issues or suffer from drift as shown in independent testing. There are very valid pros to this optic that make it one of the more used reddots chosen by SOF units. There is a large mix of optics chosen, and this is just one, but is quite popular with the teams. I also know for a fact that our units did testing after this was announced. What are they running now? Eotech. Sit down.
Eotech did not fix the problem which is why they got sued and provided refunds. The issues are still listed on their website and some performance specs have been removed. The data I cite is not from some SF dudes, it is data from two independent bodies as well as Eotech themselves admitting their sights do not perform as advertised.

All optics have parallax it's called science. Eotech has extreme parallax that occurs at all temps as well as failure to return to zero, mositure incursion, parasitic battery drain, thermal drift, and inconsistent click values. The independent testing you are referring to would be the very unscientific BS videos on youtube and user submitted data for Green Eye Tactical who also conducted very unscientific testing. The fact that Green Eye Tactical was clueless about parallax being present in all optics should tell you something.

I can tell you as well that our guys(CSOR) are primarily running Aimpoints. As little merit as "my guys are running X vs Y" has there is far more merit in the technical testing and the results from THREE different entities who all agree the sights fail to perform. The simple fact that Eotech lied about their optics for a decade means they're a sh*t company. The decision for some to continue using the Eotech is a personal choice which may involve accepting the problems associated with the sight as being insignificant for their intended role.
And in many instances, certain "pros" don't really matter much. a 50,000 hr battery life isn't more important than a 65MOA + 1 MOA dot for people engaged in battle. We aren't staying in the bush for months, and batteries are easily replaced the same way they are in the various electronic aids that our soldiers use. Add to that light transmission (HUGE) and all the other features and you start seeing why tens of thousands of actual shooters still chose to trust their life on these optics, but apparently not you shooting down a one way range.
Parasitic battery drain, it's a real problem.
So it's fine if you don't like it. Fair. But the issues have been addressed by L3 and the results prove it performs in those aspects (drift for instance) the same as the rest. If it's about L3 as a company, this is a layman opinion with what seems to be zero defense manufacturing experience. My wheelhouse.
I don't like companies who lie about their products for ten years and risk the lives of MIL and LE personnel by doing so. Are you ok with buying products from a company that puts profit ahead of safety??
Click to expand...

AFisher said:
1: hate to break it to you, but you ARE the average shooter.
2: L3 knew that their Eotech optics suffered similar drift than the other reddots. They hyped the product a bit just like aimpoint did (false claims on their own website). when it was shown that they were in the wrong, they corrected the device and moved forward.

As for the company itself, I would trust the company that put HELRAS in the Ocean. The company (WESCAM) that makes missile targeting systems. How many drone based electro-optic systems does Aimpoint make? The sister companies are pot washing machines and pharma. yes L3 dropped the ball, but they picked it back up and ran with it, faaaar past what aimpoint could ever do. here is an example of Aimpoint lying about their products as well: https://www.aimpoint.com/product/aimpoint-micro-t-2/ these optics are NOT parallax free, they also don't state the thermal drift, which was verified by testing. Was L3 supposed to do the same?
L3 is the parent company of Eotech. Don't associate Eotech as being the same as the other divisions in performace or integrity. Again, parallax is present in all optics. The parallax free claim I suspect is true if you are sighting through the centre of the viewing window. What portion of the viewing window makes up that sweet spot is still unknown. Is it a little misleading to market your optics as parallax free? Absolutely, but every optic manufacturer makes that claim about their reddot sights as well as their LPV's. If the consumer is dumb enough to believe everything they read before buying something then they're partially to blame for their disappointment as well.

Last I checked Aimpoint has been the go to reddot for 2 decades and is still the gold standard everyone else is compared to.
Click to expand...

IN the green.
DVX said:
Cool story. Spent about a decade in the army, and I'll say I've lost my zero on the C79's from bouncing around in a vehicle (which has been a lot) more than I've lost a zero on my EOTech in hot or cold weather (which has been never).
Click to expand...

Elcans are garbage and are not part of this discussion.
GuiltySpark said:
Eotech appears to continue to be used by front line dudes in the #### a lot.

Our own CANSOF seem to prefer them, or at the very least use them a lot. (I was surprised that some of the guys from DHTC weren't fans of the Elcan Spectre because of the base/mount).

Our own line infantry used Eotechs in theater for 13 years without, to my knowledge, major complaints.

I'd swear by my own Eotech I used over the POS $800 Elcan C79.

Know of a guy making a 400 meter kill shot with an Eotech, which is neither here nor there but still pretty cool. They excel for the role they were designed even though the company are dickheads for lying.
Click to expand...

Again, my sources say our guys(CSOR) are not using Eotechs in the majority. I will again say that what an individual selects may be based on the acceptance of the errors as being non critical to their role. Selecting an Eotech may also be based on comfort level and not performance data. I don't mean to offend anyone but most MIL guys are not gear junkies, they use what they have and drive on. LAV has said precisely that on several occasions as has Pat Rogers. SOF soldiers are simply soldiers. It doesn't mean they know more or are aware of tech specs of their gear.
 
Kidd X said:
IN the green.


Elcans are garbage and are not part of this discussion.


Again, my sources say our guys(CSOR) are not using Eotechs in the majority. I will again say that what an individual selects may be based on the acceptance of the errors as being non critical to their role. Selecting an Eotech may also be based on comfort level and not performance data. I don't mean to offend anyone but most MIL guys are not gear junkies, they use what they have and drive on. LAV has said precisely that on several occasions as has Pat Rogers. SOF soldiers are simply soldiers. It doesn't mean they know more or are aware of tech specs of their gear.
Click to expand...


The facts are the guys you refer to run EoTechs more than anything (cool about your sources, but I don't think your claim is true. I do know it's a small mix), they tested them after the news hit and weren't affected, but got updated ones anyway (I'm not sure how testing was done, I doubt it was in a lab though). Anyone can make claims, it's up to everyone else to determine what is correct. I do know that most guys who run at that level LOVE gear and many are well versed in technical aspects of the products they use and train others to use. You don't become the best at your game without knowledge. That's for certain. So I do trust the opinions of people who use em as well as people on the more technical side. Thanks for the breakdown on L3, as someone who did work for a few of their divisions I'm well aware how it all works, but thanks anyway. What is important to note, is that L3 acquired EoTech in 2005 but did not seem to take control until 2010, probably due to the lawsuit. Which you will find affects the way the company dealt with the problem.

The way ET dealt with the issue was definitely not good. No doubt about that. They made claims that were impossible (thermal drift), and instead of noting the issues of moisture (fixed in 2008), cold (fixed as well), they acted as if the repairs were upgrades. The physical issues were, imo, down to QC of product. could have been assembly process not followed, material defect, tolerance issue, etc. Having done multiple RC&CA for L3, I know they are "picking up the ball and running with it" as I stated earlier. This conglomerate doesn't mess about, and now that EoTech is under more control, like I said, expect them to do right. the newer units are apparently fine. Our guys run them as do thousands of soldiers and LE. The optic has great benefits and everything youre listing has more or less been corrected. It's harder to make a EoTech design work than an Aimpoint sytle design, but the results are very beneficial in use. Once another company comes out with a large glass and that rectical, with no light being emitted, then it could change things big time. But again, to the point of the conversation, there are large benefits to them that a aimpoint doesn't have, and the issues discussed were addressed.
 
DVX said:
Cool story. Spent about a decade in the army, and I'll say I've lost my zero on the C79's from bouncing around in a vehicle (which has been a lot) more than I've lost a zero on my EOTech in hot or cold weather (which has been never).
Click to expand...

AFisher said:
The facts are the guys you refer to run EoTechs more than anything (cool about your sources, but I don't think your claim is true. I do know it's a small mix), they tested them after the news hit and weren't affected, but got updated ones anyway (I'm not sure how testing was done, I doubt it was in a lab though). Anyone can make claims, it's up to everyone else to determine what is correct. I do know that most guys who run at that level LOVE gear and many are well versed in technical aspects of the products they use and train others to use. You don't become the best at your game without knowledge. That's for certain. So I do trust the opinions of people who use em as well as people on the more technical side. Thanks for the breakdown on L3, as someone who did work for a few of their divisions I'm well aware how it all works, but thanks anyway. What is important to note, is that L3 acquired EoTech in 2005 but did not seem to take control until 2010, probably due to the lawsuit. Which you will find affects the way the company dealt with the problem.

The way ET dealt with the issue was definitely not good. No doubt about that. They made claims that were impossible (thermal drift), and instead of noting the issues of moisture (fixed in 2008), cold (fixed as well), they acted as if the repairs were upgrades. The physical issues were, imo, down to QC of product. could have been assembly process not followed, material defect, tolerance issue, etc. Having done multiple RC&CA for L3, I know they are "picking up the ball and running with it" as I stated earlier. This conglomerate doesn't mess about, and now that EoTech is under more control, like I said, expect them to do right. the newer units are apparently fine. Our guys run them as do thousands of soldiers and LE. The optic has great benefits and everything youre listing has more or less been corrected. It's harder to make a EoTech design work than an Aimpoint sytle design, but the results are very beneficial in use. Once another company comes out with a large glass and that rectical, with no light being emitted, then it could change things big time. But again, to the point of the conversation, there are large benefits to them that a aimpoint doesn't have, and the issues discussed were addressed.
Click to expand...

Cool you spent a decade in the army, sorry but that doesnt mean you automatically get any credibility. I know some of Rich's background and he can share it with you if he wants.

And the CF tested them in a Lab to confirm. I have the documents.
 
Last edited:
Sinasta said:
Cool you spent a decade in the army, sorry but that doesnt mean you automatically get any credibility. I know some of Rich's background and he can share it with you if he wants.

And the CF tested them in a Lab to confirm. I have the documents.
Click to expand...


I don't doubt he knows his stuff.


I think it's pretty clear that there is a lot of fanboism with this, and I don't have gripes enough to care either way. Just saying, there are fixes to both the optic and the company that took place, and that should change the perspective we view the newer product with, especially since there are pros to the optic that makes it a common choice. Keep skepticism, but don't be a goof pointing at people trying to instigate #### at a range.
 
Last edited:
Kidd X said:
Again, my sources say our guys(CSOR) are not using Eotechs in the majority.
Click to expand...
Maybe you're right dude.

Agreed being SOF hardly makes someone infallible. That said I think the average guy there takes their job pretty seriously and has more than a passing interest in the kit they use.
 
Last edited:
GuiltySpark said:
https://ca.icebreaker.com/en/mens-underwear
There you go fella
Click to expand...

My sources say the majority in fact prefer Stanfields due to Icebreaker lying about the quality of their wool and have been doing this for about a decade. Personally, I don't buy from companies which put the genitalia of Mil and LE personnel at risk of chaffing; do you?

Considering all the ***k waggling in this thread I would recommend silk and lace for the folks who still give a damn tho
 
Gunnerlove said:
Lots of the SF guys I have worked with don't understand rifles or optics. They have zero interest in them.
Click to expand...

This. Also, for those people that keep quoting JTF2...Eotechs...blah...blah...blah, I know from a personal conversation with the now former CO of JTF2, that they were looking at replacing all of their Eotechs because of performance issues, back when this occurred in 2015.

Regards.

Mark
 
MWL said:
This. Also, for those people that keep quoting JTF2...Eotechs...blah...blah...blah, I know from a personal conversation with the now former CO of JTF2, that they were looking at replacing all of their Eotechs because of performance issues, back when this occurred in 2015.

Regards.

Mark
Click to expand...

You just quoted JTF2...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom