Red dot
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
I've had my eye on an Eotech XPS2-0 but I've honestly been considering the Bushnell trs-25 based purely on the price difference. I understand the Eotech is superior in every way but I'm kind of a cheapass and was wondering what's /K/s opinion on them if you've had any experience with either. Should I shell out the money for the Eotech?
Inb4 Aimpoint. I think the reticle and sight picture is superior on the Eotech even if the battery life isn't as good.
will you realistically have a time where your life depends on it working?
ta-dah
>>27904810
My brother got a Eotech on Saturday. Not sure what model, but it has zero magnification, and we were hitting 12" steel plates at 300 yards no problem.
>>27904810
If you don't think the reticle and sight picture are good enough with an Aimpoint, then you aren't going to like the TRS-25, which is a shitty Aimpoint micro clone.
>>27904828
Chances are probably not.
>>27904810
>buying an eoc uck
Top kek my friends!
>easier to crack
>battery issues on earlier models
>larger footprint ontop of gun
>fills with snow easier
>trs25
Now this is just stupid. Infact one of the worst optics you can buy for a defensive rifle.
>>27904833
Very true but the Bushnell is way more affordable than a micro. I know the quality is vastly better on a micro though
>hey guys I want an Eotech for the reticle and FOV
>but I'm going to buy a TRS25 that doesn't have the reticle or FOV
>don't tell me to buy an Aimpoint that is better than the TRS25 when I obviously don't actually care about the reticle or FOV
>>27904850
Yeah they suck, thats why our Special forces use em.....cuz they suck
>>27904832
>a non magnified optic has zero magnification
Wow thank you for that insightful post
Bought a $40 Aimpoint generic. Holds it zero well.
>>27904863
>muh specel furces
They use acogs and elcans. Why dont you buy one of those?
Buy an aimpoint and stop being a bitch
>>27904859
If I'm going cheap I don't have much choice in reticle preference now do I autist?
>>27904852
Why not just get a Primary Arms Advanced Micro Dot then? It's built very well and actually has decent battery life unlike the Bushnell.
>>27904872
Pics or it didn't happen
>>27904881
Pics of aimpoint or pics of special forces using elcans/acogs?
>>27904877
Why not get Pontiac grand am instead of a Ferrari?
>>27904893
Yes precisely
>>27904904
OP is considering a Ferrari or a Geo. I think the Pontiac is a decent middle ground.
>>27904863
They're dropping the EO Tech after they discovered that the optic's zero will shift 4 MOA in -40 or 122 degree Fahrenheit weather.
http://soldiersystems.net/2015/09/30/ussocom-issues-safety-use-message-eotech-enhanced-combat-optical-sights-plus-goings/
http://soldiersystems.net/2015/11/09/ussocom-evaulates-replacement-for-eotech-sights/
>>27904810
Your preference on reticles is meaningless.
Experienced shooters are just as fast.
Aimpoint and trijicon are superior red dots.
>>27904810
best tier in no particular order
>aimpoint
>trijicon
>eotech
budget tier but still good
>vortex
>primary arms
These are literally LITERALLY the only brands you should fuck with
>>27904913
>special operations don't use Elcans
Is this seriously your first day on /k/?
>>27904987
Are we talking all optics or JUST red dots? Because trijicon red dots suck/very dated for the price
>piss poor illumination requiring a strong tint for contrast
>uses dual illuminated systems that work great with an etched reticule like the acog, but fall apart with red dots
The mro is nice but the increased fov doesnt create that much off difference when aim both eyes open. Makes a difference, but a small one
As for vortex, the strikefire and sparc lines of red dots blow dick.
As for other companies
>Mepro might be loljew stuff, but the m21 is just as good as trijicon dual illuminated offerings, has an intergrated qd mount, and is cheaper
>Holosun is exactly the same stuff as primary arms
>the lucid hd7 is actually pretty good budget stuff, changing the reticule doesn't lose zero
>cmore is a great option for competition.
>>27904904
Are you even following this thread, fucknut?
>>27904987
leupold and docter make upper tier stuff as well.
>>27905201
Leupold's expensive for no fucking reason, but I totally forgot about that those really mini red dots, thank you.
>>27905162
Not no
>>27905155
mepro is trijicon reflex tier. you can get used eotechs / pro ect for the same or better price. mro looks nice though.
![7th-special-forces-group-hr[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6hofqsu.jpg "7th-special-forces-group-hr[1].jpg")
>>27904872
>they use acogs and elcans
Special Operations Forces have used and still use EOTechs faggot. They use whatever optics they want.
I cheaped out for a TRS-25 and am completely satisfied. I got it sub $50 so it was a pretty easily decision to make.
>>27904872
>implying acogs are bad.
It goes like this from best to worst combat optic
>ACOG with rmr
>ACOG
>Aimpoint with magnifier
>EOTech with magnifier
>EOTech
>Aimpoint
>everything else.
>>27905247
That's why I said just as good as trijicon dual illuminated options.
The mro does look nice and its a real turn around for that company's red dots
>>27905268
That's not true. Just because socom has a bigger budget, doesn't mean they can use whatever they want or can afford to keep up with the latest and greatest.
I mean, they use the eotechs with the batteries long ways, which have been proven to fail due to recoil knocking the batteries around and breaking the springs. The eotech (553?) is part of block II and for the time being they're stuck with them.
It's not the end of the world though. It's still a good optic.
>>27905306
This is important to note. At $50-$75, you can't beat it. It's just you probably should spend a little more to get higher quality. That's what I'd do.
>>27905350
You forgot eclan os4x with doctor, or eclan specters. But honestly acog without rmr is fast enough. The distance at which 4x mag slows you down is close enough to the distance you can start to point shoot.
All Aimpoints except the t2 don't have crisps enough dots to be used with magnifiers, magnifiers suck and don't belong on combat weapons, aimpoint blows eotech out of the water.
>>27905454
>That's not true. Just because socom has a bigger budget, doesn't mean they can use whatever they want or can afford to keep up with the latest and greatest.
I feel like unit financial and SOP constraints on optic usage is implicit. When saying "they use whatever optics they want" I didn't mean "every SOF soldier has access to the use of every single type of rifle optic manufactured."
What really is entirely untrue and does not have an ounce of evidence for it is saying that they only use Elcans and ACOGs, which is what this retard >>27904872 said.
>>27904921
Poor old nigger thinks it's a Cadillac.
>>27904810
EOtech and Aimpoint will hold value, and last plenty long.
Garbage TRS 25 will not, you will wish you had either dropped the money on quality now or else gotten that $20 generic red dot on Amazon
>>27904850
While the Eotechs do have a cracking problem, the nature of their design inherently makes cracks irrelevant to their function. Each portion of the glass in an eotech has a 3d hologram embedded in it. You could theoretically shatter the thing, take out a shard of the holographic plate, shine a laser into it, and still see the reticle.
Not that it justifies the thing cracking, but it's a neat consequence of holographic imaging.
I had an eotech 512 for about a year and started out liking it but slowly grew to hate it. I found the reticle was good for fast target acquisition but it was a bit fuzzy when turning the birghtness to a higher setting which made precision at ranges from 100-200 yards difficult. inb4 "maybe you need glasses"
20/20 vision
>>27905350
thank you anon for validating my purchase
How can you guys pay so fucking much for something like this? I'm just fine with my generic $35 red dot, even if I have to re sight it every time I take it out.
>>27906861
hobbies cost money man
Eotechs are shit
Trs is shit
The only option is the advanced micro dot
>>27906861
> even if I have to re sight it every time I take it out
time vs money
you want to spend more time every time you hit the range, good for you. not going to knock it. hell, i've walked for miles instead of paying $2 for the bus
>>27905155
You talk shit about Vortex then you talk up the Lucid?
The lucid sucks
Its heavy, bullshit reticles, bad battery life, tiny FOV, and its mount is terrible
