Eotech and Aimpoint observations: with pics

[Marc]

never had an issue with m mine, but knowing its capabilities and downfalls are still beneficial. one thing you wont see from the manufacturer is the what the possible issues you "could" have

 

[mettle]

I'm sure Aimpoint doesn't plan on posting their issues either. Who would?

 

[pftraining_in]

I'm sure Aimpoint doesn't plan on posting their issues either. Who would?

Can you explain the Aimpoint issues?

 

[mettle]

Can you explain the Aimpoint issues?

Oh, I'm not saying Aimpoint has HAD issues; I am saying, as a business/company who would want to openly reveal any opens sores to the public about mishaps, bad quality or just bad choices in technology or planning?

Don't read into what is not there...

 

[GarandMD]

Thanks for all of the information. I am considering either the eotech or aimpoint soon. Can someone explain the 7mm raised mount on some of the eotechs and how that effects the cowitness? What is the benefit if any?

 

[Denny347]

Thanks for all of the information. I am considering either the eotech or aimpoint soon. Can someone explain the 7mm raised mount on some of the eotechs and how that effects the cowitness? What is the benefit if any?

Raising it 7mm will place the iron sights in the lower 1/3 of your sight picture. Having no riser will make it a 1/2 co-witness, the irons will take up 1/2 of your sight picture. Some people like it that way. I use the RRA Dominator that is a 1/3 co-witness. It allows more target view. I use iron sights that do not fold down so if my EOtech craps out in a fire fight, I just re-adjust my face to look through the irons and I do not skip a beat.

 

[mvician]

I've owned multiples of both and finally sold off my last one.


Which brand did I stay with?





Aimpoint.


As much as I wanted to like the EOTech, my eyes had to make a choice.
I wear bifocals to see up close, distance my prescription is very slight. Pain in the donkey to see the EO reticle as a blurry blob while viewing the target. So for me the best was to stick with the single dot of the Aimpoint.

My 5th Aimpoint will be arriving shortly.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I've owned multiples of both and finally sold off my last one.


Which brand did I stay with?





Aimpoint.


As much as I wanted to like the EOTech, my eyes had to make a choice.
I wear bifocals to see up close, distance my prescription is very slight. Pain in the donkey to see the EO reticle as a blurry blob while viewing the target. So for me the best was to stick with the single dot of the Aimpoint.

My 5th Aimpoint will be arriving shortly.

With a quadrail type forearm you can always move the eotech forward more.
Mine sits just forward of the upper receiver.

 

[mvician]

With a quadrail type forearm you can always move the eotech forward more.
Mine sits just forward of the upper receiver.

Yes with a monolithic free float rail, but then you are shifting weight forward of the center of gravity, making the front end heavier.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I have the S&W M&P15T. It doesn't feel front heavy to me. Of course I don't have the magnitude of AR's to compare with that you do either.

 

[slow1911s]

I'm curious - I see a lot of talk about features, but not a lot of talk about how you shoot with one or the other? I'm not talking about how it performs on the bench or just shooting bullseyes, but speed. Target-to-target transitions. Shot-to-shot recovery. Tight shots. How does the sight help you put rounds where they need to be?

I shoot and promote the Aimpoint 4 MOA dots. For me, nothing helps me put rounds on target faster or more accurately inside of 50 yds. Past 50, I like a bit of magnification (which is why I shoot a 1.25-4x AccuPoint, also, and an ACOG TA11 before that). But, the Aimpoint is very capable out to 200-250 in the right hands with the right zero.

I have some limited experience with the EOTech. For me, that reticule is just too noisy. The center dot is too small, the 65 MOA ring does nothing for me. And, due to my astigmatism, the reticule is just weak to my eye. I much, much prefer the solid, round, bright red dot of the Aimpoint.

Another option that isn't being discussed here is the C-More. I wonder why?

 

[mettle]

I'm curious - I see a lot of talk about features, but not a lot of talk about how you shoot with one or the other? I'm not talking about how it performs on the bench or just shooting bullseyes, but speed. Target-to-target transitions. Shot-to-shot recovery. Tight shots. How does the sight help you put rounds where they need to be?

I shoot and promote the Aimpoint 4 MOA dots. For me, nothing helps me put rounds on target faster or more accurately inside of 50 yds. Past 50, I like a bit of magnification (which is why I shoot a 1.25-4x AccuPoint, also, and an ACOG TA11 before that). But, the Aimpoint is very capable out to 200-250 in the right hands with the right zero.

I have some limited experience with the EOTech. For me, that reticule is just too noisy. The center dot is too small, the 65 MOA ring does nothing for me. And, due to my astigmatism, the reticule is just weak to my eye. I much, much prefer the solid, round, bright red dot of the Aimpoint.

Another option that isn't being discussed here is the C-More. I wonder why?

I find that odd. My 2MOA ML3 is smaller than my EO 1MOA center dot; fact.
I can shoot rapid fire more with more consistent hits, and get on target faster with the EO. I put that in the OP. There has been a few to say this, aside from the usual responses about 'better xxxx'.

Because this is an Eotech and Aimpoint discussion/review thread.

 

[shooter521]

Because this is an Eotech and Aimpoint discussion/review thread.

Good point. And having owned a C-More in the past, I'd take an EO or an Aimpoint instead, every time...

 

[slow1911s]

Etd

 

[hornadylnl]

Ok, I've thought about buying an aimpoint. I looked through one for the first time today. Here's my problem that I see, maybe it isn't founded. I bought a cheap BSA red dot to put on a slug gun. Every time I put the gun to my face, the dot was in a different spot. How accurate is it going to be if you can't get a good consistant cheek weld?

Next issue. I always qualified expert in the last half of my military career with an M16A2 with irons. One time, I hit 38 out of 40. I hit the first 18 targets in the foxhole and went to fire on the 19th. Click. I was shorted 2 rounds in that mag. I went on to hit 20 for 20 in the prone unsupported. The point is I can consistantly hit out to 300m with iron sights. I'm trying to figure out how a 2 moa or bigger dot is going to improve my hit percentage.

Next issue. I don't understand this whole co witness thing. From what I gather, you are lining up the irons looking through the scope. If there is a magnification to the scope, wouldn't it enlarge the front sight post? Also, if you have the irons in the lower third of the scope, wouldn't that cause you to have 2 different cheek welds? In the Army, they taught us cheek weld was everything.

I'm thinking that the main thing I'd really want an aimpoint for is real close in work for mout, etc. If close enough and a good cheek weld, you are going to knock a guy down in 25 yards anyway as your natural cheek weld will put you right down the sights anyway.

What am I missing here? I'm just thinking that If I shell out $500 plus for a sight, I won't like it and I'll take it off.

 

[mettle]

Ok, I've thought about buying an aimpoint. I looked through one for the first time today. Here's my problem that I see, maybe it isn't founded. I bought a cheap BSA red dot to put on a slug gun. Every time I put the gun to my face, the dot was in a different spot. How accurate is it going to be if you can't get a good consistant cheek weld?

Next issue. I always qualified expert in the last half of my military career with an M16A2 with irons. One time, I hit 38 out of 40. I hit the first 18 targets in the foxhole and went to fire on the 19th. Click. I was shorted 2 rounds in that mag. I went on to hit 20 for 20 in the prone unsupported. The point is I can consistantly hit out to 300m with iron sights. I'm trying to figure out how a 2 moa or bigger dot is going to improve my hit percentage.

Next issue. I don't understand this whole co witness thing. From what I gather, you are lining up the irons looking through the scope. If there is a magnification to the scope, wouldn't it enlarge the front sight post? Also, if you have the irons in the lower third of the scope, wouldn't that cause you to have 2 different cheek welds? In the Army, they taught us cheek weld was everything.

I'm thinking that the main thing I'd really want an aimpoint for is real close in work for mout, etc. If close enough and a good cheek weld, you are going to knock a guy down in 25 yards anyway as your natural cheek weld will put you right down the sights anyway.

What am I missing here? I'm just thinking that If I shell out $500 plus for a sight, I won't like it and I'll take it off.

Aimpoints, Eotechs don't have a 'real' magnification on them. Some Eotechs have had issues with the wandering zero as well, they work to remedy that though. Aimpoints have not, it's not been reported at least.

You can expect these two scopes to hold zero, the latest ones for sure in the EOs.

The co-witness if to allow the use of the dot over the top of the irons, while looking though the sight, yes. The difference being that close quarters work, or night work for that matter, the sight can be used for those two scenarios. The two planes of sight are minimal, and can be learned so as to use the same 'cheek weld' for both.

Another plus side is the super fast target acquisition that is there with the sights. If you can hit with irons out to 300; then, you can hit with a EO or Aimpoint FASTER out to 300. There is no lining up the irons, breathing etc, there is only superimposing the dot over the target with the proper hold over and pulling the trigger (well).

I would suggest borrowing from a member on this site; or, meeting them and shooting/testing for yourself.

 

[esrice]

Ok, I've thought about buying an aimpoint.

Stop thinking! Do it!

I looked through one for the first time today. Here's my problem that I see, maybe it isn't founded. I bought a cheap BSA red dot to put on a slug gun. Every time I put the gun to my face, the dot was in a different spot. How accurate is it going to be if you can't get a good consistant cheek weld?

Was the 'wondering dot' with the BSA or Aimpoint?

Keep in mind that with a true Aimpoint that little red dot will always be your point-of-aim, no matter where your eye is in relation to the optic. That's the cool "magic" (ok, science) of it all.

Getting a good cheek weld has to do with the shooter more than it does the optic. Obviously you need to have the optic mounted in the right place so that your natural cheek weld lines up everytime. But, even if your cheek weld is sloppy and inconsistent, just put the dot on what you want to hit and pull the trigger.

Next issue. I can consistantly hit out to 300m with iron sights. I'm trying to figure out how a 2 moa or bigger dot is going to improve my hit percentage.

Aimpoints are non-magnified 1x optics meant for close-quarters engagement, not long distance (although you should be able to make man-sized hits out to 300m if you do your part). If you can hit better with irons, then use them, but up close and personal is where the Aimpoint shines and blows those irons out of the water. The big benefit to a red dot scope is the simplicity-- no more trying to line up two objects. Simply put the dot on the target and pull the trigger.

Next issue. I don't understand this whole co witness thing. From what I gather, you are lining up the irons looking through the scope. If there is a magnification to the scope, wouldn't it enlarge the front sight post? Also, if you have the irons in the lower third of the scope, wouldn't that cause you to have 2 different cheek welds? In the Army, they taught us cheek weld was everything.

1. There is no magnification, so no enlarged front sight post.

2. Depending on your normal/natural cheek weld, you may have to adjust from shooting through the optic to shooting through the irons in the lower 1/3-- may not. The benefit of the lower 1/3 co-witness is that if you're running a fixed BUIS it is less busy in your normal sight (dot) picture.

I'm thinking that the main thing I'd really want an aimpoint for is real close in work for mout, etc.

Exactly.

If close enough and a good cheek weld, you are going to knock a guy down in 25 yards anyway as your natural cheek weld will put you right down the sights anyway.

But with the Aimpoint you simplify everything by only having 1 point of reference instead of 2. Put the dot on the target and pull the trigger. (I see a pattern emerging. . . )

What am I missing here? I'm just thinking that If I shell out $500 plus for a sight, I won't like it and I'll take it off.

Well don't go buy one if you don't think you'll like it. Try it first. I'm sure there's someone on here close to you that would let you test one out. I'm on the southside of Indy and would certainly be willing to let you try mine out.

 

[hornadylnl]

Thanks for the input. One of these days I'll splurge on some real optics. The most I've ever spent on any scope is $300.

 

[esrice]

Thanks for the input. One of these days I'll splurge on some real optics. The most I've ever spent on any scope is $300.

My Aimpoint CompC3 was only $369.

 

[mettle]

Please post here if you have the latest XPS Eotech model: I'd like to see pics and have your thoughts on it.