EOTech recall poll
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
Trying to gauge /k/'s sentiments on the EOTech lawsuit.
Will you be returning your EOTech sight(s) due to the recent findings of USSOCOM and the FBI?
http://strawpoll.me/6405278
https://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2015/manhattan-u.s.-attorney-files-and-simultaneously-settles-false-claims-act-lawsuit-against-defense-contractor-and-its-president-for-multi-year-fraud-involving-sale-of-defective-weapons-sights-to-u.s.-military-and-other-agencies
>By early 2006, Defendants knew that their sights failed to perform as represented. At hot and cold temperatures, the sights experienced a condition known as “thermal drift,” meaning that the sight’s point of aim differed from its point of impact. EOTECH’s own internal tests showed that some models experienced drift of 6 to 12 minutes of angle (“MOA”), i.e., 6 to 12 inches per 100 yards. Even though EOTECH’s contracts with DOD required disclosure of any information concerning the reliability of the sights, EOTECH did not disclose this defect to DOD until 2015, after the FBI discovered the problem and presented its findings to EOTECH.
>In 2007, Defendants became aware of a separate performance failure in cold temperature, known internally as “cold weather distortion.” At around 32 degrees Fahrenheit, the sight’s aiming dot became distorted, affecting accuracy by 12 MOA, increasing to 20 MOA at 5 degrees Fahrenheit. Defendants did not disclose this defect from DOD for more than a year, until EOTECH had a fix in place. EOTECH then presented the fix as an upgrade to a product that conformed to specifications, and did not disclose that the entire stock of sights that DOD had purchased since 2004 was defective.
Thoughts?
>>28369011
>Will you be returning your EOTech sight(s) due to the recent findings of USSOCOM and the FBI?
>Buying Eotechs
Kek. This formally vindicates what shooting instructors, veterans, and large parts of the shooting community have been saying for years.
The only reason people bought Eotechs was because of blind worship of SOF equipment, and they couldn't wrap their brains around the idea that even operators get issued equipment that might not be their preference, and that equipment is purchased by bureaucrats.
>>28369043
>they couldn't wrap their brains around the idea that even operators get issued equipment that might not be their preference
That's the dilemma, though:
For me, target acquisition is significantly with an EOTech compared to an aimpoint. I much prefer the wider field of view and the more details hologram.
It sucks because nobody else offers an optic with a similar wide field of view + detailed hologram. The only one on the market appears to be defective, and the company that makes them appears to be in the business of putting combat personnel in harm's way.
>>28369080
>significantly
significantly faster**
>>28369080
>Caring about FOV in a close quarters optic
But why? Unless you're putting a magnifier or NOD behind it, FOV doesn't matter a bit.
>>28369108
>FOV doesn't matter at close range
What???
Wouldn't it be the exact opposite? Can you elaborate?
>>28369108
More FOV allows more room for your head to be off axis at weird angles where a good cheek weld might not be possible.
>>28369215
If you keep both your eyes open, the FOV of the optic window doesn't matter. You will be seeing your normal field of vision with a red dot overlaid on top.
Focusing on only the window is the wrong way to do things.
The important feature for close quarters optics is how much the housing blocks your overall view, and between Eotechs and fullsize Aimpoints it's about even.
People with microdots aren't focusing on the tiny window they have.
>>28369011
I thought only I made these threads.
I'm still waiting to hear about at least ONE person getting a refund check. Until I hear that it's actually legit, then I will send in my 552 for sure, to be replaced with an Acog.
>>28369080
http://www.meprolight.com/default.asp?catid={2D1A5EA0-9AE1-4487-8E2B-CBBF5641658B}&details_type=1&itemid={FD44627E-1FD3-4811-969B-D59CE751DD4A}
Bulls-eye reticle.
>>28369611
Yes, but it comes with a narrow field of view.
Does the meprolight m5 have a bullseye reticle? From what I'm seeing, it's just a simple dot.
>>28369011
>people are actually keeping their junk optics
A sucker born every minute, way to let EoTech and L3 know that you are totally okay with falsified and fradulent information and sales tactics.
>>28369990
The M6 doesn't have any reticle other than the dot.
The M21 does not have a narrow field of view.
Eotech lists theirs as 30 x 23 mm, and the M21 is 30mm.
The M21 has a large field of view. The only problem is its fucking green/blue hue.
>>28370032
I'm surprised people even bought into EoTech's shitty sights in the first place.
>>28370147
"IF ITS SO SHITTY WHY DOES SPECIAL FORCES USE IT?!?!?!?"
People worship any gear touched by operators.
>>28370147
I got a good deal on my 552 used
So, if I return mine, I will actually profit
Which I will as soon as someone gets a refund and not a "gift certificate"
>>28370264
>Which I will as soon as someone gets a refund and not a "gift certificate"
kek, are they actually just giving people store credit?
>trade in your broken optic for another broken optic!
lmao
>>28370422
I don't know. That's the thing.
Haven't heard any reports yet of anyone getting a refund check.
My funds will be going to Trijicon for an Acog with a 300 blackout reticle.
>>28369080
MSE AQC?
I'm not returning it because it's a bad optic.
I'm returning it because Aimpoints are better, and I can get full MSRP for what is essentially a 1 to 1 swap.
I'll be buying the half-price eotech refurbs that will hit the market in 3 months.
>>28370264
The person who posted the gift certificate thing was bullshit.
Aside from that, they approved the returns for refunds, and if they gave gift certificates it would be illegal.
>>28370715
that's what I was thinking too.
I just want to hear about at least ONE asshole who gets their refund, and then I will send mine in.
Maybe I should submit the refund request now, but wait to actually ship it to them until I hear about someone getting a refund.
>>28370791
>waiting months before getting in line for refunds
They are already facing one civil suit, how many more will there be when these bullshit law firms try to sink their teeth into a L3 company?
People that think they can actually send their shit in months later are going to get left behind with nothing to show for it.
>>28370032
Are the gpnvg18's in your meme part of the irony?
>>28370841
but no one has got shit yet
>>28370605
Discontinued
>>28369011
What do you mean thoughts? They fucked up, they need to fix it or give money back.
You need thoughts on this?
>>28369011
Can someone explain this to me? Haven't these things been around for a long time? Why just now is this happening?
>>28372238
Been happening for a lot longer than now, but investigations take time.
>>28372238
Their reported temp specifications were found to be way off. L3 knew about it and didn't fix/change it.
>>28372683
at this point their reputation has diminished to the point where they either need to improve to repair the image, or just accept being bottom barrel garbage on the tier slightly above ncstar
I have two 552's I'll be keeping. They were bought cheap from a cop, department surplus, years ago. They haven't failed and I don't intent to be jumping out of a plane in the upper, upper atmosphere (read: space) into Mt. Doom operating innamordor
>>28373734
The issues with drift start at 32 degrees F
>>28373734
They are issuing full, no questions asked refunds. It'd be silly to not return them for something better.
>>28374245
I don't think you understand how having sights that were originally purchased on LEO letterhead might be slightly more problematic to return.
Digging up the receipt and going through the whole process will be more hassle than it's worth.
I have money.
>>28374767
you won't have to produce a receipt
I have a 552 I'll return for a refund. I got mine used too so I'll make a profit on a refund. I'd be stupid not to.
>>28371092
Correction, lots of people already have shit, they are seeking a refund.
>>28374767
>receipt
I don't think you understand. You send them the optic and they either send you new ones or the cash value that those optics would have gone for new.
No receipt required.
No questions asked.
Comprende?
>>28372238
EOTech sold sights without performing adequate testing, then covered-up the fact the sights were defective and did not meet specifications.
I think I'm gonna go with the Meprolight M5
They sell for $370 on amazon. Has a wide fov. I would prefer a bullseye retical over a dot, but i can live with the dot. Approved for use in combat by IDF.
I don't think I'd be able to get over the giant reticle of the M21. And the MOR is $1200, so fuck that.
I just hate the aimpoint FOV. I can get a vortex 3x flip to side magnifier + a Meprolight M5 for less than the cost of an aimpoint t1/t2 - with a wider FOV. Seems like a good deal.
>>28369011
If they could fix it, I'd return for a repair, but since it appears they cannot, I'm returning mine for a refund.
>>28370184
>>28370147
>donut of death
>holds zero in regular climate
>>28370147
Not everyone had first hand knowledge that they were faulty. Since the government used them, and people assume the government tests their shit extensively, there was confidence that they were reliable. In this case that the government didn't do their job either.
The only readily available criticisms were "I know a guy, who knows a guy, who had a bad one ... therefore they're shit." There were no easily searchable tests to back up those anecdotal accounts. And let's face it, there's always going to be some sperg lord on the internet with a bad opinion who cannot understand why people don't like what he likes.
When I was in the market, none of the local LGS carried Aimpoint, but they all had EOTechs. If Aimpoints were so shit awesome, it didn't show.
>>28369011
the poll should be "Of those of you who own eotechs, how many have experienced one of the problems, as identified by the government, with your individually owned eotech sight?"
>>28377708
>not everyone had first hand knowledge
thats because not everyones sights are defective
>>28377795
Mine started failing only recently. I was aware of the delamination problems, and was double checking when I went to the range. Earlier in the year it was fine. I put it away when the weather got colder, but checked again when I heard of the lawsuit and found that the reticle is starting to fade in some spots.
>>28369011
I have a 512 on one of my ARs. DESU, I prefer the damn thing on my 10/22. If they WERE offering a refund, I might consider taking it. I got mine on a whim on Armslist for 200 bucks. So yeah, I would definitely be making a profit.
>>28372238
People in the shooting community have been saying Eotechs suck for a long time. This is official vindication from an investigation though.
>>28375033
no one has got shit, as in no one has gotten a refund yet.
>>28369011
will i be returning my EOTech? no because im not a wannabe oper8r with my red dot and red dot magnifyer, back up iron sights, magpul shit everywhere, and other snake oil gypsy magic gun accessories. i dont buy into spending close to a thousand dollars so i can be part of the cool kids.
>>28378776
It's okay. You can just admit you're poor
>>28378114
>saying eotechs suck for a long time
Only in the "lol I can keep my Aimpoint on every day for 80 years" sense.
>>28369011
Eotech started making garbage when L3 bought them out YEARS ago.
Never got anything they made because the writing has been on the wall for years.
>>28378854
No really, they have. Ever noticed how EOtechs had this big boom that fizzled super fast?
>>28378776
See my problem is that I live in MN, so for the third of the year it's sub zero let alone the 1/2 or 2/3rd's of the year it's sub 32 I don't want to have a sight that's drifting all over the place.
That said if they have a fix for the issue I'll try and get it repaired or replaced because I think the EOtech is the bees knees.
>>28378907
>big boom then fizzled
No. All I remember is people saying "50,000 hours > 1100 hours, MUH optic turning off in 72 hour running gunbattles".
>>28369011
COD FAGS BTFO
