Rifle Scopes Switched from Aimpoint to EOtech thanks to US Optics!

M

Mrgichoke

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Oct 11, 2013
16
0
#1
Now that I have your attention, let me explain. My AR-15 collection is divided into 3 categories: Close Range, Medium Range, and Long Range set ups.

For close range I have used Aimpoints for more then 10 years. For medium range set ups I have used Aimpoints with Magnifiers. For long Range I currently use US Optics (SR-8C).

If I could grab only one of these set ups I would use the rifle with the Aimpoint/ magnifier for its versatility. This combo has worked well for me for years. When I looked at the US Optics SR-4C (1-4X with Red Dot) at SHOT Show i knew instantly this optic would replace my Aimpoint/ Magnifier combo. I purchased an SR-4C as soon as I could and mounted it on one of my Colt 6940's. Playing around with this optic set on 1X in my home I noticed something- a huge field of view!

I compared the field of view of the USO 1-4X to my T1s and realized the T1 is like trying to look through a straw! I never really noticed how bad the field of view is on the T1 until this point.

When I looked around for data to compare the EOtech and the Aimpoint I realized no tier one Military team was using Aimpoints. ALL of them (CAG, Dev Group, MeuSOC) use EOtechs…

I started asking around to military people that i know to find out why. Here is what they told me- The EOtech is preferred to the Aimpoint with teams for 3 reasons: 1. Field of view is much greater then Aimpoint making it much easier to identify threats and watch the "Battle Space" during CQB. 2. The square shape for the EOtech housing matches up perfectly to the geometry of rooms and buildings making it harder to miss corners and generally "own the room" more effectively. 3. The reticle of the EOtech performs better with Night Vision.

After getting some range time with the EOtech I can say I'm faster, and more accurate then I was with the Aimpoints. I also feel I have better situational awareness with the EOtech because of the big field of view.

At this point my short range carbines use EOtech EXP3s and my medium and long range Carbines and Rifles use US Optics SR-4Cs and SR-8Cs. I could not be any happier!
 
#4
Mrgichoke said:
I compared the field of view of the USO 1-4X to my T1s and realized the T1 is like trying to look through a straw! I never really noticed how bad the field of view is on the T1 until this point.
Click to expand...

Its just that this statement is throwing me off. The field of view will only appear to get smaller if you focus "through" the optic, as in shooting behind a magnified scope. With 1x power optics (parallax free) like aimpoints, the USO and EOtechs the aiming point is super-imposed on the target.

In other words I'm not focusing on the dot I'm focusing on the target and the dot just appears to float on target. Unlike shooting a pistol with irons where you're focused on the front sight/ target blurred.

This way I cannot see how FOV changes or is even affected. If you focus on the dot then you'll experience the tunnel or "straw" effect.

As long as you're happy with your gear its all good!
 
#5
Mrgichoke said:
When I looked around for data to compare the EOtech and the Aimpoint I realized no tier one Military team was using Aimpoints. ALL of them (CAG, Dev Group, MeuSOC) use EOtechs…
Click to expand...

May wanna rethink that statement.

Anyway, good that you're enjoying your switch... I personally will stick to Aimpoint products for my RDS needs because they're built better. I don't need battery box issues.
 
#6
Quick question on your USO scopes, the SR-8C in particular. When the scope is set on 1x, does the image look to be a true 1x or is it smaller? The reason I ask is that I was recently looking through a buddy's SR-8C and the image on the lowest magnification setting (1x) actually appeared to be .75x. Several do us looked through it and noticed the same thing. We wondered if it was an anomaly with that particular scope or if it was designed that way. The FOV on "1x" was huge.

Congrats on getting your optics figured out! Being comfortable and confident in your gear goes a long way towards maximizing shooting potential!
 
#7
When I talk about field of view I am doing so from the stand point of target threat determination, not shooting. Take a T1 and mount it on a blue gun M4, have a friend stand 10 feet away from you (room distances) put the dot on his upper chest and challenge him to put his hands up. With that optic in that scenario you can't see his hand (hands are whats going to kill you) and you can't see his waste band (most likely place a bad guy carries a weapon). This is no good! I think a lot of us do too much range training of shooting paper and steel but not enough scenario based training like the one i described. When you ask people why they love their T1 they always say the same thing- it's light and small, and it is but for me thats not enough.
 
#10
MSTN said:
My own experiences with the Eotech, both as an end user and as a dealer, preclude my ever owning another one.

I am Aimpoint T-1 all the way, thank you.
Click to expand...

I know Eotech's get a bad rap for reliability, but it sure seems that a lot of operators use them. When you see pics of SF guys in real world situations, they frequently (not exclusively) have Eotech's on their M4's. In speaking to a few first hand, it seems that the FOV and compatibility with NV gear (lines up better with weapons mounted PVS-14?) are the primary reasons for going with Eotech vs Aimpoint. A few told me they like the Eotech reticle better (guess that's a matter of personal preference)

I don't use either nor have a preference. My eyes are not good enough to hit anything beyond 100yds w/o magnification so I use low power variables on my AR's. I have always wondered, however, why so many operators use Eotechs given their dubious reputation for durability and reliability. I figured if they were that bad, nobody would use them if they had a choice.

My apologies to the OP, it appears this thread is taking a swerve toward an Aimpoint vs Eotech argument.
 
#11
I had an SR-8s which I replaced with a Bushnell ET 1-6.5x24 SFP. FFP in a 1-x power scope is not desirable to me, but Bushnell offers this scope in FFP if one is so inclined.
IMHO the Bushnell is a better scope than the USO, hands down. Better illumination, better CQB reticle, larger FOV, glass just as good, lighter, better selection of mounts resulting in proper eye relief, price 2/3 of the USO are the most obvious reasons.
Several 1-6 scopes live on several of my 16" and 14.x" barreled ARs and IMHO this configuration is optimal for the AR as a CQB and medium range weapon.

I switched from an EOTech 512 to an Aimpoint Comp M4 years ago for the durability and battery life of the Aimpoint. I tried a magnifier on the EOTech when I had it and did not like it. That's not to say it can't work for others, I just didn't like the reticle at 3x along with the target.

FOV is not much of an issue with a 1x gunsight as I've got both eyes open and more than 6" of eye relief so I've got use of my peripheral vision. The body of the scope obscures a few degrees at most of my FOV to the right and nothing on the left (right eye dominant).

With the huge FOV of the Bushnell at 1x and how the scope tube practically disappears with the proper eye relief, the 1-6.5 functions better than the Aimpoint or the EOTech in all situations. Surely it is not as robust as an Aimpoint, plus I can't leave the illumination on 24x7, so the rifle with the Aimpoint would still be my choice if something went bump in the night.
 
Last edited:
#12
I'd like to hear from more Operators and LE on this issue. Love the Aimpoint battery life and reliability over the EOTECH. My Aimpoint ML3 seems to have a bigger field of view than my T-1.
 
#13
Aimpoint battery might last longer but there is a helluva lot less reticle to illuminate than on an Eotech. It's like comparing a 50" TV to a 30" and arguing the 30 is better because it uses less electricity. Both great, both get the job done. Prefer the Eotech reticle myself.
 
#15
This field of view argument I still don't get. The bigger issue I see is the bigger the housing the more it is in the way, therefore the t1 would allow greater perceived fov being out of the way. The straight in line battery eotechs scare me. I've read about them shutting off under recoil but never had the issue for years till this year shooting my bro-in-laws 512 and it shut off under light recoil. I do prefer the eotech reticle but I'd take a t1 over any eotech.
 
#16
Grand said:
I'd like to hear from more Operators and LE on this issue.
Click to expand...

+1

Would really like to hear from professional end users who use EOtech's over Aimpoint for work when they have a choice. It would be interesting to know why they choose EOtech. There are definitely a lot of them out there.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    158.5 KB · Views: 216
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    405.2 KB · Views: 78
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    74.7 KB · Views: 51
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    104.4 KB · Views: 53
#17
Mrgichoke said:
When I talk about field of view I am doing so from the stand point of target threat determination, not shooting. Take a T1 and mount it on a blue gun M4, have a friend stand 10 feet away from you (room distances) put the dot on his upper chest and challenge him to put his hands up. With that optic in that scenario you can't see his hand (hands are whats going to kill you) and you can't see his waste band (most likely place a bad guy carries a weapon). This is no good! I think a lot of us do too much range training of shooting paper and steel but not enough scenario based training like the one i described. When you ask people why they love their T1 they always say the same thing- it's light and small, and it is but for me thats not enough.
Click to expand...



If a bad guy is 10' away, I'm not using any sights.
 
#18
Glad you've found something that works better for you but most of your conclusions are either wrong, or come from a poor understanding and/or implementation of the equipment. Hell, look at the Funker videos showing MEUSOC guys using Elcan's as an example.
 
#19
Funny as I know of a lot of people who rely on their guns who choose the Aimpoint because they just plain work. The battery life is significantly better and several of the older Eotech designs have a problem shitting themselves in terms of holding zero in field use. Sorry, but for my needs an optic needs to be able to retain zero and there have been several units I have personally seen lose their zero vibrating in patrol car racks when used off-road. If you shoot both eyes open field of view should not be an issue. If you're using this as a fighting gun, you should always be shooting both eyes open to maintain full awareness of your surroundings rather than becoming tunnelvisioned. But hey, that's just my opinion from use.

In full disclosure, I run only run the Aimpoint and ACOG on rifles used for work purposes. Take my word for what it is, an opinion.
 
#20
A few points of clarification for the OP:

MEUSOC is Marine Expeditionary Unit Special Operations Capable, I think you meant to say MARSOC which is our Tier 1 group.

As others have indicated, the SOF guys use whatever the hell they feel like on rifles and are not limited to EoTech.

The idea that a square optic (Eotech) in some way offers a hidden advantage in clearing a square room has me at a loss for words, which doesn't happen often.


To echo the question that's been asked multiple times: how the hell are you having field of view issues with both eyes open? Whether I'm using a T1, Comp 4, Eotech, or low variable on 1x, my optic effectively disappears when I'm shooting. I see a target with a red dot on it.



Hopefully these issues will be solved before school starts back up in a few weeks.
 
#21
When considering the argument about which units use what... keep in mind that the EOtech has been in the arms rooms of about every unit from the bottom to the top tier. The average gunslinger has whats available to them, which is the EOtech. Obliviously more elite units have a much more freedom of movement to chose their own optics.

I can say that have run both in matches, but have only run the EOtech while in situations that more than points were on the line. I had one "fail" but I seriously believe that almost all optics would have failed given the situation. If I were headed back across the pond... Im pretty sure there would be an EOtech on top of any AR under 16".

I have a T1 on my current favorite AR... but I still find myself wanting an new gen EOtech also.
 
#23
bogeybrown said:
The idea that a square optic (Eotech) in some way offers a hidden advantage in clearing a square room has me at a loss for words, which doesn't happen often.


To echo the question that's been asked multiple times: how the hell are you having field of view issues with both eyes open? Whether I'm using a T1, Comp 4, Eotech, or low variable on 1x, my optic effectively disappears when I'm shooting. I see a target with a red dot on it.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Thats what I said. If the OP is focusing on the dot instead of the target then I'm sorry to say that he/she is using this type of sight wrong. That would explain the "looking through a straw" idea. Dot sights, 1x, EoTech ALL parallax free non magnifying optics your focus is on the target not the reticle/dot.

I'm a right handed/ right eye dominant shooter and when I switch to weakside with an Aimpoint the dot suddenly appears OUTSIDE the optic. Floating mysteriously in space, but on target for hits at the press of the trigger. What you see is what you get.
 
#24
Yeah, I dunno. I'm thinking the "other" forum may be of more assistance on this one. There's plenty of Tier-1 types over there that could probably explain to me how a square optic prevents someone from failing to clear a corner. I guess I should be that much happier to be alive with all the times I did it with everything from open sights to a Leupold CQ/T.
 
#25
Mrgichoke said:
When I talk about field of view I am doing so from the stand point of target threat determination, not shooting. Take a T1 and mount it on a blue gun M4, have a friend stand 10 feet away from you (room distances) put the dot on his upper chest and challenge him to put his hands up. With that optic in that scenario you can't see his hand (hands are whats going to kill you) and you can't see his waste band (most likely place a bad guy carries a weapon). This is no good! I think a lot of us do too much range training of shooting paper and steel but not enough scenario based training like the one i described. When you ask people why they love their T1 they always say the same thing- it's light and small, and it is but for me thats not enough.
Click to expand...

...and what is your background in CQB again?
 
#26
After I retired from the .mil, I was a contractor, forward in Kuwait living on KNB.
I maintained the ammo database, requisitioned and directed shipment of ammo for NSWU-3.
The guys going into and coming out of theater came through our compound and stayed there.
I recall seeing a lot of aimpoints but do not ever recall seeing an EOTECH.
Putting a fresh battery in before you head into indian country and carrying one spare is lot easier than carrying a box full of batteries with you.

Course, maybe they weren't tier one enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasyad
#27
A few years ago at the Big Sandy shoot, I was assisting their Blaster by taping Glow Sticks to TNT. The topic of Red Dots came up, and he shared some wisdom I'd never heard before. An Operator using a Red Dot does not need to open the front cover (just the rear) to put rounds on target, as long as both eyes are open. He was right after I tried it. Maybe that's why Aimpoint PROs came with a clear insert in the rear cover.
 
#29
both are great optics, but the aimpoints are more robust and have better battery life. as for field of view, if you run it with both eyes open, you end up with the reticle or dot just floating in your peripheral vision, so field of view is the same if you run it that way. that said, takes all kinds to make the world go around, some guys like aimpoints, some eotechs.
 
#30
HugoStiglitz said:
A few years ago at the Big Sandy shoot, I was assisting their Blaster by taping Glow Sticks to TNT. The topic of Red Dots came up, and he shared some wisdom I'd never heard before. An Operator using a Red Dot does not need to open the front cover (just the rear) to put rounds on target, as long as both eyes are open. He was right after I tried it. Maybe that's why Aimpoint PROs came with a clear insert in the rear cover.
Click to expand...

That is the same concept of the Occluded Eye Gunsight, it has been working for decades.
 
#32
HugoStiglitz said:
A few years ago at the Big Sandy shoot, I was assisting their Blaster by taping Glow Sticks to TNT. The topic of Red Dots came up, and he shared some wisdom I'd never heard before. An Operator using a Red Dot does not need to open the front cover (just the rear) to put rounds on target, as long as both eyes are open. He was right after I tried it. Maybe that's why Aimpoint PROs came with a clear insert in the rear cover.
Click to expand...

That is exactly why the clear cover is on the back. It allows for you to still use your rds should you need it at an instant notice, or if you forget for some reason or another to open it. You can and very easily will still be on target.
 
#33
I just switched from an Eotech to a T1 on my duty SBR. One of the things I like better for my purposes so far is the aimpoints knob for illumination instead of buttons. Clearing a house its pretty common to go from a brightly lit upstairs to a completely pitch black basement in a hurry and I can just crank down the brightness real quick if I need to instead of trying to fumble fuck with those little buttons on the eotech. I would rather it be on the left side, but still better than little buttons. And, the battery life. If I'm out just patrolling the streets I can turn it on and if I need it grab it without worrying about it. If not, 8 hours later I turn it off.
 
#34
Grand said:
I'd like to hear from more Operators and LE on this issue. Love the Aimpoint battery life and reliability over the EOTECH. My Aimpoint ML3 seems to have a bigger field of view than my T-1.
Click to expand...

I've had both Aimpoint and EOTech on my patrol rifle. I love the battery life in the Aimpoint but the field of view with the EOTech is too hard to pass up. I shoot with both eyes open and it's not an issue with the Aimpoint but end of the day more of my field of view falls within the EOTech window than with the Aimpoint. The Aimpoint comp series with the rubber armor also bulks up the space between in/out of the shooting window. There's hardly anything in the same space on the EOTech.
 
#35
pupdawg said:
Exactly.

Thats what I said. If the OP is focusing on the dot instead of the target then I'm sorry to say that he/she is using this type of sight wrong. That would explain the "looking through a straw" idea. Dot sights, 1x, EoTech ALL parallax free non magnifying optics your focus is on the target not the reticle/dot.

I'm a right handed/ right eye dominant shooter and when I switch to weakside with an Aimpoint the dot suddenly appears OUTSIDE the optic. Floating mysteriously in space, but on target for hits at the press of the trigger. What you see is what you get.
Click to expand...

+1
Knowing the correct way with which to effectively employ an optic is imperative to it performing up to the users expectations. FOV should in now way, shape, or form be an issue with a T1 if one is using it according to how it was designed to be used.
 
#36
HugoStiglitz said:
A few years ago at the Big Sandy shoot, I was assisting their Blaster by taping Glow Sticks to TNT. The topic of Red Dots came up, and he shared some wisdom I'd never heard before. An Operator using a Red Dot does not need to open the front cover (just the rear) to put rounds on target, as long as both eyes are open. He was right after I tried it. Maybe that's why Aimpoint PROs came with a clear insert in the rear cover.
Click to expand...

In the 90s I had a Trijicon sight on an AR that had no glass or "optics" to the sight at all. I can't remember the damn name of it right now, but it was just a tube holding a tritium rod. It was not possible to look through it, but with both eyes open you got the dot magically imposed on your target.
 
#37
I also prefer the Eotech to Aimpoint. Even with people saying things like 'it doesn't matter which you use, the focus is on the target not the reticle', I still find that the Eotech gives me better situational awareness, and an easier time keeping both eyes open. However, I'm a right-handed shooter, and I'm left eye dominant. That could be part of it for me.

I'd say that in my department the Eotech is chosen probably 3:1 over the Aimpoint, though that may have nothing to do with the quality of either optic (price, availability, and other factors could have also skewed these numbers).
 
#38
Use what you like, they're both fine but neither one is magical... When I spend my own money I buy T1's. I have no problem running an Eotech at work but they do fail more often (at least it seems that way) but the fact is they're replaced for free so a lot of guys don't mind. Kinda reminds me on Elcans. I like them but I wouldn't spend my own money on one. I personally like the Eotech reticle better but I've seen enough problems not to spend my money on them. The T1 is lighter, less battery worry, and in my opinion more durable. Plus you can run one on a pistol, shotgun, Ak etc and they don't look retarded and work great. Everyone runs irons as well so that kinda tells you the reliability factor of both optics…They're electronic and they sometimes fail…irons can fail as well and that's why you run an optic and irons. Bottom line is guys do have some leeway to run what they want however, there is a lane that you must stay in….even "Tier 1" guys…. I wonder how many people even knows what that means.

T1 for me!
 
#39
Coloradocop,
If you're willing to share, I'm curious what the eval process entails when it comes to optics selection. Specifically, how much time an officer has behind it, what type of education is received beforehand, in what environments it is tested, etc.
 
#41
bogeybrown said:
In the 90s I had a Trijicon sight on an AR that had no glass or "optics" to the sight at all. I can't remember the damn name of it right now, but it was just a tube holding a tritium rod. It was not possible to look through it, but with both eyes open you got the dot magically imposed on your target.
Click to expand...

That would be the occluded eye gunsight
 
#42
I have had my 552 for a long time and aside from changing the batteries, I have not had any issues. I have moved it around from one rifle to another, used it at point blank distance and out to roughly 200 yards.

When it came time to get a second optic for an SBR I went with something different and got an Aim Point Pro. While I have not had near the amount of time with the Pro that I have had with my EOTECH, it is damn cool. No complaints, nothing bad to say about it.

Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I am tracking with the general consensus here, FOV in normal conditions is not an issue with either.

Now with that said, I did come across this piece of information/marketing that may have lent itself to the argument

Marines buy more EOTechs - The Optics Talk Forums

Depending on the details of the setup, I can see how the FOV as it relates to a night vision monocular behind the optic could create the argument, but.... well I will leave it at that.

In addition EOTECH markets their design as having a larger FOV than a typical Red Dot tubular design
Holographic Sight Versus Red Dot Sight | EOTech

Marketing doesn't make it true, and neither does repeating something just because it is in writing.

Best I can tell FOV is not an issue at least not for me.
My AimPoint is on my CQB setup, my EOTECH is on an SR15
 
#43
rgrmike said:
Use what you like, they're both fine but neither one is magical... When I spend my own money I buy T1's. I have no problem running an Eotech at work but they do fail more often (at least it seems that way) but the fact is they're replaced for free so a lot of guys don't mind. Kinda reminds me on Elcans. I like them but I wouldn't spend my own money on one. I personally like the Eotech reticle better but I've seen enough problems not to spend my money on them. The T1 is lighter, less battery worry, and in my opinion more durable. Plus you can run one on a pistol, shotgun, Ak etc and they don't look retarded and work great. Everyone runs irons as well so that kinda tells you the reliability factor of both optics…They're electronic and they sometimes fail…irons can fail as well and that's why you run an optic and irons. Bottom line is guys do have some leeway to run what they want however, there is a lane that you must stay in….even "Tier 1" guys…. I wonder how many people even knows what that means.

T1 for me!
Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying, too, and hope I didn't come across as an Eotech fanboy. I've personally shot rifles with both, and just went with the option that seemed best to me. Some folks drink Coke, some drink Pepsi, and neither is wrong.

Like you, I also run irons on my rifle. My Eotech battery lasts a while, but once died on me while I was conducting a large building clearance. It was nice to have the backup irons that time! Any electronic device can fail (in any number of ways). Both Aimpoint and Eotech make a quality product, it really just comes down to individual preference.
 
#44
jasonfaz said:
Coloradocop,
If you're willing to share, I'm curious what the eval process entails when it comes to optics selection. Specifically, how much time an officer has behind it, what type of education is received beforehand, in what environments it is tested, etc.
Click to expand...

Basically, the authorized optics we can use are evaluated by our full-time firearms bureau guys at work. I don't know exactly what process was used in evaluating the optics, but I have some friends in that unit that can surely share some more insight with me on that subject. I know they were being considered for a couple of years before they were approved, but part of that certainly had to do with politics, rather than testing. As far as the SELECTION of optics is concerned, well, that works like most things in government: after our in-house experts evaluate the products, they submit their findings to the brass. The brass then decides what is authorized based on whatever criteria they want to use (which isn't often explained to the rest of us, including the guys who evaluated the stuff).

Based on other things I know of that have been evaluated around here, the testing environment usually involves running it in the environment where LE officers would be likely to use it. With firearms, they are usually tested with a variety of ammo, ran without cleaning, etc (normal testing stuff). But, I doubt we test or torture the stuff we evaluate quite as thoroughly as the military might (we don't have their budget).

I believe we currently only authorize the Eotech and Aimpoint, and neither one is mandatory. They were still being tested back when I went through my patrol rifle class, and the instructors had some examples of each available for us to play with during the course, and gave a brief familiarization talk about them. I ran iron sights for the first couple of years that I carried a rifle, and later added an Eotech after getting some more trigger time behind both optics. In terms of training, any of the rifle certified guys can just throw on whichever optic they want and run with it (as long as those optics are on the "authorized" list).

At least that is my take on it. Others from my agency are around here as well, and can certainly chime in on this if they have had a different experience.
 
#45
Gotcha. Thanks for the insight. I asked only because it seemed relatively clear that the post initiating the whole T1 vs EOTech thing was made by a member of LE who clearly was unaware of how a T1 must be used in order to be effective. Moreover, there have been recent posts by LE seeking advice on rifle selection that have been posed in a way that implies the officers themselves aren't actually doing the testing - and like you mentioned - appear to be done by committee with less than adequate instruction and/or knowledge of some of the key aspects that should be involved in any process approving such equipment.

That said, I also understand that the system isn't perfect and you have to do what you have to do while the political machine does what it does. Must be frustrating to say the least...
 
#46
jasonfaz said:
Gotcha. Thanks for the insight. I asked only because it seemed relatively clear that the post initiating the whole T1 vs EOTech thing was made by a member of LE who clearly was unaware of how a T1 must be used in order to be effective. Moreover, there have been recent posts by LE seeking advice on rifle selection that have been posed in a way that implies the officers themselves aren't actually doing the testing - and like you mentioned - appear to be done by committee with less than adequate instruction and/or knowledge of some of the key aspects that should be involved in any process approving such equipment.

That said, I also understand that the system isn't perfect and you have to do what you have to do while the political machine does what it does. Must be frustrating to say the least...
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, most Military and LEOs, who carry a gun for a living... Aren't really "gun guys".

Most just use what their issued, and think because so and so agency, team, etc uses that product that its the end all be all. Seriously, I can honestly say that for the most part, soldiers I know that own personal guns have the cheapest AR they can buy, then make it look like a cheaper then dirt catalog threw up on it.

The problem, in my eyes, is that use of a weapon is seen as an absolute last resort, which for the most part is entirely true. However, being that it is seen as a last resort, you end up getting classes like "Sexual Harassment Awareness" or "Equal Opportunity" shoved down your throat much much more then you get hands on with weapons. Therefore, they don't really have all that much knowledge outside of the basics they were taught either in an academy, or basic training program. Its a sad state of affairs if you ask me. I have more experience with the military side, however, I have seen more then a few officers who have to provide their own patrol carbines and in my eyes carry a very inferior product (see "cheaper then dirt catalog threw up on it") even down to a guy trying to go to a Police Sniper school rocking a Remmy 770 complete with Barska scope.
 
Last edited:
#47
I follow you 100%. I also have substantially more experience with the mil side of the house rather than LE. I agree that it takes a good amount of individual initiative outside of official duties to really ensure you're as educated as you could be on things that can very well save you life someday - and that would go for both military and LE. That said, after going through the NFA process 20 or so times and some of the recent political BS here in Colorado I've gotten to know a good number of local Sheriffs and LEOs. I've consistently expressed how much I'd love to help that community and would certainly enjoy hitting the range or a course with them, but there just hasn't been any significant interest at all. Not sure why, there are probably a number of reasons, but I figured educating myself on the current policies and processes was a good place to start gaining an understanding as to why that might be the case.
 
#48
catatonic said:
Believe it or not, most Military and LEOs, who carry a gun for a living... Aren't really "gun guys".

Most just use what their issued...
Click to expand...

+1

I'm definitely no operator, but allot of dudes I know who are use whatever the fuck they feel like. It changes over time and mission. Now days lots of dudes I know use the ELCAN and really like it. I've never shot with one, only messed around and expressed some professional jealousy. Between the Aimpoint and Eotech, I like the Eotech better because I seem to pick up the giant 65 MOA circle really fast. The only downside I see other than battery life is if you have prescription eyeware and you're not wearing it, the Eotech becomes really really fuzzy.

just my .02
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lux_612
Optics Trade Eotech 558 for Aimpoint CompM4
Replies
0
Views
85
Lux_612
Lux_612
pewpew300WM
Optics for Home Defense and Range
Replies
107
Views
2K
Naaman
N
R
Spotters US Optics Warranty
Replies
3
Views
298
Charger442
Charger442
A
Rifle Scopes Mark5 Leupold 5-25 vs US Optic B25 5-25
Replies
3
Views
370
stanley_white
stanley_white
Milirad
EOTech Holographic Sight Parallax Induced POA Error Compared to Reflex Red Dot Sights
Replies
70
Views
3K
Milirad
Milirad
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts