JCheeseright Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Easiest way to tell a real eotech from a fake is looking at the reticle, on a fake it should be crisp with nicely defined edges, on a real one, in a completely backward way they're quite pixellated and the reticle is far from being crisp. That, and on a fake if you look in through the front lens you'll be able to see the LED shining away and on a real one you won't, because there's no LED. Oh, and if you push the NV button on a real one the reticle all but disappears even in the dark... on a fake it turns green. Close to off topic I know, but relevant on some level! Link to post Share on other sites
jal3 Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Yeah EOTechs are annoyingly fuzzy. The light transmission beats everything else on the market though. If you've ever looked through a real aimpoint, or especially, a trijicon reflex, you know how bad light transmission these sights have. Link to post Share on other sites
JCheeseright Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Dunno, I have a trijicon RMR on my block and it's pretty good, obviously not perfect but it's 100x better than a clone. Link to post Share on other sites
blobface Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Easiest way to tell a real eotech from a fake is looking at the reticle + also the front is completely clear, not reflective like a clone. As far as mini red dot goes, personally, having owned the Doctor sight, RMR, and the Leupold delta point, I find the RMR to be the worst offender when it comes to warping the images, especially near the edges, possibly due to the thickness of the glass which they probably put in to make it more robust.. or "Ruggedized" as they call it.. imo the delta point is the clearest of those three and "feels" less flimsy than the Doctor Sight. Aimpoints are definitely pretty bad compared to Eotech in the department of light transmission, I think the Trijicon tri-power is slightly better than the average aimpoint, everything is quite observably darker while viewing through the sight, I guess everything has its ups and down, aimpoint's battery last forever.. Eotech's don't.. Link to post Share on other sites
jal3 Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Yes, light transmission directly translates to battery usage, because it determines the amount of light reflected from the light source. Trijicon Reflex. Link to post Share on other sites
Zereck Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 Well I ordered an EoTech 512 from the USA on Ebay in the middle of December and after customs sitting on it for 12 days I finally got it. Here is it with my XPS clone: I hope its visible enough that the real ones window is much further under the cover. Not even mentioning that it has no ghosting or visible source of light and can burn your eyes out at max brightness. Link to post Share on other sites
DrAlexanderTobacco Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 I bought an XPS2-0 a few weeks ago. Used it once or twice and it's really good so far. Nothing to complain about really. I do agree that the fuzzy-ness of the reticule appears annoying at first, but I found that lowering the brightness slightly (It shouldn't appear bright to begin with IIRC) was enough to make it perfect. Link to post Share on other sites
Amoki Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 RE EOTEch and Bushnell holosight, forget Bushnell holosights and jump straight to EOTechs: Bushnell holosight IIRC are equivalent to EOTech Rev A/Bs and the performance under sunlight is ridiculously poor compare to modern Eotech (Rev Fs).Re EOTech and ITARs, at face value 512 isn't ITAR restricted but if you live in certain countries that isn't friendly to American interest (e.g. Iran or North Korea) you are SOL. I have someone who sold me a brand new EOTEch 512 on Ebay and ship it via USPS without problem. Fuzziness of EOTech reticule may be due to eye issues for some. EOTech reticules project to infinity (since its a hologram). Once my vision is corrected (a.k.a wearing glasses) the reticule is a solid reticule - this IMO is a near-perfect representation of what someone with perfect vision should expect to see. . This Holographic Weapon Sight must be exported from the United States in accordance with Export Administration Regulations ECCN 0A987. Diversion contrary to U.S. law is prohibited. In accordance with U.S. law (Title 15 CFR part 746 and Supplement No. 1 to Part 774; and Title 31 CFR) resale/re-export or transfer of Holographic Weapon Sight Models 552, 551, 512, 511, 4X magnifier and 3X magnifier to certain designated countries is prohibited without prior written consent of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Holographic Weapon Sight Models 553, 557 and 555 are controlled under U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and may not be exported without proper authorization by the U.S. Department of State. Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 be careful with this ITAR stuff guys... http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/01/portland_man_gets_probation_fi.html Link to post Share on other sites
jal3 Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Yes EOTech are notoriously dependent on eyesight. I think all dotsights are, but EOTech design makes the reticule even more fuzzy than other dotsights when eyesight is slightly off. Even the reticule in that picture is fuzzy; the brightness in it is uneven. Here's an example of the kobra sight, my personal favorite: This is a really, really close up shot. It's way smaller to look at IRL. The entire reticle can fit twice in a EOTech reticle.The reticle itself is consistent. The bloom around the dot and chevron is removed by using appropriate brightness setting. The example is way over bright. This is where EOTech differs. No matter how little brightness, the reticle itself, not bloom at the borders, is always kinda fuzzy. I don't think it's an issue for most people. Also try mounting an m16 rear sight behind the dotsight (like normal backup sight) and view the dot through it. It becomes super sharp! Link to post Share on other sites
jkpics Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 If you have a lot of problems with bloom on sights and other lights at night/in the dark it might be your eyes any you may have glaucoma, I have BS gens so I got that *suitcase* at 34, high pressure in the eye gives massive bloom/halo effects. Link to post Share on other sites
blobface Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 (COBRA) This is a really, really close up shot. It's way smaller to look at IRL. Wow, that's really cool, I have a cobra as well and it never occurred to me that they look like that up close.. I love my cobra as well, but their battery life isn't that great, thanks to me leaving it on by accident too often. Link to post Share on other sites
blobface Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 be careful with this ITAR stuff guys... http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/01/portland_man_gets_probation_fi.html That looks less like ITAR but more the fact that he just straight up exported gun parts... I find that a lot of US companies aren't selling items overseas even if they aren't ITAR, but EAR regulated, like many lights and optics, which there's a list of countries that are exempt from needing a license to export to for certain technology (see list below), it's not easy to get your head around and it's more trouble than its worth, so I think a lot of companies just out right say no to all overseas people and say to us they can't do it "due to regulations" or "due to company policy". http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=59ee1d5eeb8f1d444ba88927fa1eaaff&rgn=div9&view=text&node=15:2.1.3.4.24.0.1.5.27&idno=15 Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 I think it was a peq-2 Link to post Share on other sites
blobface Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Ah ic... what the hell are those motorcycle gangs doing with peq-2....lol Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Ah ic... what the hell are those motorcycle gangs doing with peq-2....lol Don't ask me although I've heard they had some pretty serious kit back when they were fighting each other in the 90s - AT weapons etc. crazy stuff Link to post Share on other sites
Ryaw Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Similar question, but with regards to which smaller micro T1 sight (replica) is the best to get for a GBBR? I've just gotten a GHK G5 and don't like the iron sights much. Link to post Share on other sites
DrAlexanderTobacco Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Yes EOTech are notoriously dependent on eyesight. I think all dotsights are, but EOTech design makes the reticule even more fuzzy than other dotsights when eyesight is slightly off. This is a really, really close up shot. It's way smaller to look at IRL. The entire reticle can fit twice in a EOTech reticle. The reticle itself is consistent. The bloom around the dot and chevron is removed by using appropriate brightness setting. The example is way over bright. This is where EOTech differs. No matter how little brightness, the reticle itself, not bloom at the borders, is always kinda fuzzy. I don't think it's an issue for most people. Also try mounting an m16 rear sight behind the dotsight (like normal backup sight) and view the dot through it. It becomes super sharp! I think the thing to remember about the fuzziness, is that it does not compromise the border of the reticule if that makes sense. You've still got a very clear, defined 65moa ring with a 1moa dot in the centre. Where the fuzzyness kicks in is the consistency of the redness in the reticule itself. Which, for close-up environments the EoTech is designed for, is not a problem at all and shouldn't be for anyone. Link to post Share on other sites
paranoiddroid Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Primary arms make for about 80 $ a reddot thats rated highly for use with .22s and stuff as a decent quality budget dot. I have my eye on a magmifier and reddot combo Link to post Share on other sites
Gigueand Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 be careful with this ITAR stuff guys... http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/01/portland_man_gets_probation_fi.html Our very own Titleist. Link to post Share on other sites
Danke Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Not a good move. Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Our very own Titleist. yup... do you reckon the deal was done here lol Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 ok, its not an eotech replica, but is for RS use and is NV compatible. No idea on the quality but thought it would be worth putting up here: http://www.sightmark.com/sm14003.html Link to post Share on other sites
AG1212 Posted February 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 I've decided to wait till I can use and see an Eotech in person, if I go to German or wherever. My eyes are too *fruitcage*ed to risk it I'll just find a cheap RS replica or G&P replica. Link to post Share on other sites
mrsevenstars Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 Wow. Titleist, a name i havent heard in years. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.