6.8 inches long and 16oz is pretty cool and it takes Acog mini mounts. Not very excited for 3-9 magnification and MOA only though, what do y’all think?
Rifle Scopes New EOTech 3-9x32 SFP Opinion Thread
- Thread starter GrandeJake
- Start date
-
- Tags
- eotech vudu riflescopes
I could see this on a 45 degree offset and paired with a 7-35x primary scope. Give you a 3-35x mag range. 
Honestly might not be terrible for a hunting rifle but I'd rather have a 1-8x with SFP reticle than this.
Honestly might not be terrible for a hunting rifle but I'd rather have a 1-8x with SFP reticle than this.
There’s something pretty cool about it. The SPR crowd seeing this is likely let down, but my friend made a good point that this is more of an ACOG killer than anything else.
If you run the EFLX on the ring mount… you technically have a 1-35 capability and all in a very compact aerodynamical package. You’re on to something here.I could see this on a 45 degree offset and paired with a 7-35x primary scope. Give you a 3-35x mag range.
Honestly might not be terrible for a hunting rifle but I'd rather have a 1-8x with SFP reticle than this.
2 inch tactical sunshade?! Plus Mil Dot reticle? EOTech can’t compete with Temu in the tactical “Chode” category.
It kinda gives a 1-6 with piggyback dot a run for its money assuming the eyebox isn’t awful. If you’re gonna run the dot anyways 9x top end is kinda nice.
You really think it can tackle the cult of the ACOG though?
1-8s tend to suck or cost double (or more). I think the concept here is great, just gimme mils and perhaps FFP.
I love the idea for a general purpose rifle setup. But the reticle is an abortion. That bothers me even more then the .25 MOA turrets.
Should have been .10 MIL so dialing and RTZ feature was useful, have a better reticle than a 1.2 MOA center dot with a 2004 TMR hashing setup, and arguably parallax. I can only assume that it's SFP with no parallax due to size constraints.
If they make a MIL version with an actually useful reticle I'll buy one in a heartbeat. It's far better for a general purpose carbine than an ACOG assuming it's durable. The height for the top dot is a little concerning but if you do your zero offset properly it's probably ok.
Should have been .10 MIL so dialing and RTZ feature was useful, have a better reticle than a 1.2 MOA center dot with a 2004 TMR hashing setup, and arguably parallax. I can only assume that it's SFP with no parallax due to size constraints.
If they make a MIL version with an actually useful reticle I'll buy one in a heartbeat. It's far better for a general purpose carbine than an ACOG assuming it's durable. The height for the top dot is a little concerning but if you do your zero offset properly it's probably ok.
I’m not sure it’ll actually make a dent in the ACOG market, but it seems more analogous to what those folks would be looking for (basically a variable power ACOG that still accepts piggyback dots)
It’s too much of a sacrifice for the SPR crowd in every category. Also no mils like everyone else has mentioned
My first thought was huh might be a decent SPR or heaven forbid… Mini Recce optic. Maybe it’ll be good on a small 300blk, to give you a touch of rail space on an already tiny upper pic rail, but 3X base mag is a bit high for clip on use isn’t it?
If Vortex could give me a Razor 1-6 at this size and 16 ounces it would be a pretty nice deal.
Solution looking for a problem. It will go down along with the ELCAN 3-6-9 as a dud.
Seems like a very cool idea! Like everyone else, I hate the MOA-base and the reticle, hopefully they'll address that.
It's a good concept. Professional users will appreciate it. However, the recreational market likely won't and that may cause it to be a dud.
I applaud them for realizing that popular opinions of recreational users' don't necessarily reflect an objective reality. You end up with a very compact and lightweight option that isn't hindered by all the things people think they need such as:
- No need for 1x when many (maybe starting to become most?) are mounting RDS optics on top or offset.
- No need for FFP as you're not going to be on lower powers AND also need to have some sort of data that needs to be translated. I.E. you're not going to need to know your XYZ distance hold is 5 mils/moa on 6x.
- Shot corrections using last round impact can be done at any magnification on SFP the exact same way as FFP and that's what most people will be doing with an optic like this.
The mil vs moa is more of just a preference than an actual operational complaint. There shouldn't be any reason you're not just as effective with either with the kind of shooting you will be doing with this optic. But I can understand people want to just keep it all the same no matter what.
When you get rid of the need for 1x as well as FFP, you can make a more affordable and slightly more durable optic. While also significantly decreasing the size.
On paper, it's a great concept. In reality, it might tank because people don't really know what they don't know and think they need 1x and FFP in these type of optics.
I applaud them for realizing that popular opinions of recreational users' don't necessarily reflect an objective reality. You end up with a very compact and lightweight option that isn't hindered by all the things people think they need such as:
- No need for 1x when many (maybe starting to become most?) are mounting RDS optics on top or offset.
- No need for FFP as you're not going to be on lower powers AND also need to have some sort of data that needs to be translated. I.E. you're not going to need to know your XYZ distance hold is 5 mils/moa on 6x.
- Shot corrections using last round impact can be done at any magnification on SFP the exact same way as FFP and that's what most people will be doing with an optic like this.
The mil vs moa is more of just a preference than an actual operational complaint. There shouldn't be any reason you're not just as effective with either with the kind of shooting you will be doing with this optic. But I can understand people want to just keep it all the same no matter what.
When you get rid of the need for 1x as well as FFP, you can make a more affordable and slightly more durable optic. While also significantly decreasing the size.
On paper, it's a great concept. In reality, it might tank because people don't really know what they don't know and think they need 1x and FFP in these type of optics.
I agree with above though, this isn't going to be an SPR optic. Just an option for LPVO crow that wants a smaller footprint.
There might be some use for the hunting market for such a small footprint. Many (most?) are still using SFP and MOA optics.
There might be some use for the hunting market for such a small footprint. Many (most?) are still using SFP and MOA optics.
I happen to to think it "looks" pretty cool, but not the MPVO many have been looking for. The big question is how usable will it be??? We'll have to wait and see once they start getting into some good hands... My concern is it is so short there are too many compromises, but again, have to wait and see. Very smart to do this >>> "The unique design provides an integrated base that is also compatible with any aftermarket mini-ACOG® mounts." I'm sure some of you remember the EOTech Super Short 5-25, great on paper but not so great in real world applications... there's "short" and then there's "too short", let's hope this isn't too short.
If I am piggybacking a red dot my main scope is going to be a 3-18 or 5-25.
Also, is a single screw as a recoil lug on the scope base sufficient?
-Stan
Also, is a single screw as a recoil lug on the scope base sufficient?
-Stan
That makes sense to me, but plenty of people are piggybacking on an ACOG. This seems like a big upgrade in capability.
I like it. I think it has a few kinks to be ironed out but I think if people give it a chance that it could do well. To me it seems like it’s trying to bridge a gap between prism optics and LPVO’s. For sure it’s not an optic for an SPR, but for more general purposes.
I don’t mind it being sfp, but ffp with a bdc would probably have made it more popular for what it is. I for sure do not like the reticle and would prefer mil adjustment and not moa. I think without the red dot it has a limited appeal, at least for me, but with it you’re getting a wide range of use.
I’ve used acogs, still own one, and also use an LPVO with a piggyback red dot. I like the acog with a red dot combo but wish it had more power and better eye relief. I like the power and eye relief an LPVO provides but not so much the weight and bulk, and with a red dot on top I only use it at max power anyway. So to me it seems to scrunch all that down into a fairly useable package offering features I want.
Now if they just offer it with a better reticle then I would be happy with it. In mil I would be even more happy.
I don’t mind it being sfp, but ffp with a bdc would probably have made it more popular for what it is. I for sure do not like the reticle and would prefer mil adjustment and not moa. I think without the red dot it has a limited appeal, at least for me, but with it you’re getting a wide range of use.
I’ve used acogs, still own one, and also use an LPVO with a piggyback red dot. I like the acog with a red dot combo but wish it had more power and better eye relief. I like the power and eye relief an LPVO provides but not so much the weight and bulk, and with a red dot on top I only use it at max power anyway. So to me it seems to scrunch all that down into a fairly useable package offering features I want.
Now if they just offer it with a better reticle then I would be happy with it. In mil I would be even more happy.
The problem with MOA adjustments is that it results in a MOA reticle which is my biggest gripe with this.
Looks goofy but I’m considering this for both a 6.5 CM gas gun and a hunting bolt gun.
I was waiting on the weight and price, and at 16oz and a good mil discount, this seems to be a winner.
My only thoughts are if it collects enough light at twilight hours, and I’d rather have mil adjustments for my gas gun.
I was waiting on the weight and price, and at 16oz and a good mil discount, this seems to be a winner.
My only thoughts are if it collects enough light at twilight hours, and I’d rather have mil adjustments for my gas gun.
Between this 3-9 and a 3-18/5-25?
Umm, for starters this thing is 16oz and has its own mount. A 3-18/5-25 with mount is easily going to be over 30oz. An extra pound. So yes, I’ll go on and say extremely different weight.
And to “go on”, as for purpose, this clearly isn’t for precision shooting, which 3-18s/5-25s are.
It’s really pretty simple and you should t need to be told these things.
I do think a Mil option would be more appealing, I imagine FFP won't work in much a short tube.
Basically unless it's going on an AR I don't think these will be popular. Maybe some sort of ultra light/short bolt gun, but dialable turrets would probably make it more appealing. If it gives up too much optical quality by being ultra short then I think it'll ne a real dud.
I don't think I'd ever buy one, but I could see it being a replacement for basic hunting 3-9 scopes if the price is right and the optics aren't all screwy.
Basically unless it's going on an AR I don't think these will be popular. Maybe some sort of ultra light/short bolt gun, but dialable turrets would probably make it more appealing. If it gives up too much optical quality by being ultra short then I think it'll ne a real dud.
I don't think I'd ever buy one, but I could see it being a replacement for basic hunting 3-9 scopes if the price is right and the optics aren't all screwy.
16oz including the mount would make it a great lightweight option for anything under 600 yards would be my guess. Use the red dot for anything sub 100 yards then switch to the magnified for anything beyond that, dial mag for distance needs.
just as a comparison, the VCOG 1-8x with mount is 32oz. With the EoTech you could have your 1x and the 3-9x at 6x and really be able to hit 10 yards to 200+ easily without touching a thing.
just as a comparison, the VCOG 1-8x with mount is 32oz. With the EoTech you could have your 1x and the 3-9x at 6x and really be able to hit 10 yards to 200+ easily without touching a thing.
Yup. Depending on how the eyebox is, this could really be a great option for my 16” 6.5CM AR10.
It looks really janky.. but if it works.
Similar threads
