ACOG vs EOTech Range Report


PDA






Travis McGee
June 18, 2010, 08:42 PM
Okay, this wasn't a bench-by-bench comparison. But I did shoot one rifle last week at my range, and the other rifle today at a guest range. Both ranges are in Florida, if you care, on opposite coasts.

Both rifles were comparable M-4gerys. Top end or close to to top end. (Not junk.) Similar stocks, barrels, etc. I'm not going to mention the makes, because it's not the point of my essay tonight. Trust me, both are fine, fine rifles that are capable of greater accuracy than I ever will lend to them.

Okay. Rifle #1 sports a 1 power EOTech sight and a compensator/muzzle brake. The EOTech's 1X aiming point is a one minute of angle red dot, surrounded by a red circle. If you have read this far, you already know this.

Rifle #2 sports a 4X Trijicon ACOG and a flash suppressor. The ACOG's reticle is an orange triangle, the aiming point is the top tip. In both cases I was shooting from a bench and offhand at 100 yards at standard 100 yard NRA targets. These are about 2 feet square, with about a 10" black bullseye graduated with rings. I wasn't counting scores, but initial sighting-in groups, and then offhand effectiveness.

Impressions: the Trijicon is the finest sight I've ever shot on a combat carbine, period. Bar none. Better by far than my EOTech, Aimpoints (4 minute of angle red dots) and various other optical and electronic sights I have used. Off a rest, the Trijicon was shooting a sub 2" group, and I suck at bench rest shooting. I cannot get my EOTech to shoot that well, even though it has a 1 MOA red dot, mainly because my "over 50" eyes are starting to slip, maybe. The best bench groups I could get with the EOTech were about 4". The 4X Trijicon brought that 10" bull in sharp and clear. The triangle top reticle is like a surgeon's scalpel. Sub 2" bench groups were easy. Yet it's also bright and fast and "intuitive."

Bench rest verdict: Trijicon wins, hands down.

Standing, offhand. To get a little realism into the comparison, I shot identical NRA targets offhand, "semi-rapid fire." A combat carbine is about shooting with speed while running around and trying not to get shot. Bench rest performance is just step one. Standing offhand with both rifles/sights, I could really kill that 10" bull at 100 yards. The 1 MOA EOTech is easily centered. Offhand, both rifles and scopes were far better than the shooter, me. But to be truthful, semi-rapid fire standing, and going through entire 30 round mags to simulate realistic fatigue, I found it much easier to stay "all in the black" with the Trijicon. That 4X triangle is just so damn good. And it has built-in stadia steps under the triangle for 400 and 600 yards. I'd hate to be a Taliban with ten Marines chasing me with M-16 A3 mounted with Trijicons!

Offhand accuracy at 100 yards: Trijicon wins again.

Second discussion: flash suppressor vs. muzzle brake. One area where I must give credit to my own M-4gery with the EOTech is due to its brake/compensator. Yes, the 5.56mm "mouse gun" does not have much recoil. Yes, your ten year old little sister can shoot it without crying. BUT, my muzzle brake/compensator makes a fast rifle even faster. The Trijicon with the flash suppressor was more accurate, but just a bit slower than the EOTech with the brake. The Trijicon/flash suppressor would jump off of the target just enough between semi-rapid fire shots to force you to "re-acquire" the bull on the triangle.

But my EOTech with the compensator (no holes on the bottom, for zero "muzzle flip" means that my 1moa EOTech red dot stays dead-tits on the center of the bull between shots. If the ranges allowed true rapid fire, I'm sure that's when the brake would really shine. (No 'one second per shot rule'.) With the brake you can just nail your target all the way through a magazine, with both eyes open, never ever losing your point of aim even for a nanosecond.

But with no magnification, the EOTech just could not maximize the accuracy the way the Trijicon did.

My recommendation for the deadliest combo? Put a Trijicon on top of your M-4gery, and a muzzle brake/compensator on the front. Then you will be able to attack targets like a damn sewing machine! Who needs full auto, when you can just DRILL a target at 100 yards as fast as you can shoot?

I wish I was still out west at a "free range" gravel pit where I could put this theory to the test. But our Eastern RSO's just don't like hearing 30 round mags go out in under 30 seconds.

A few more thoughts: If I knew I’d only be using my rifle from point blank to 200 yards, I’d say my EOTech would be great. Maybe even quicker under 100 yards with no magnification.

But from 100 to 600 yards, the Trijicon would win hands-down, no comparison. Zero. None.

And up close, there are those who say that the Trijoon acts like an “occluded eye gunsight” while you are swinging onto the target with both eyes open. That is, the left eye sees the target, the right eye sees that BRIGHT orange triangle. As you put them together and steady on target, the right eye comes into focus, and there you are, on target. I have not had a chance to test this (no free range gravel pits nearby) but it sounds like it would work.

Both are damn fine sights, but the Trijicon ACOG is hands down better.

Put a brake/comp in front, and you would have a seriously deadly off-hand running-around-and-shooting killer carbine.

If you enjoyed reading about "ACOG vs EOTech Range Report" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Avenger29
June 18, 2010, 08:58 PM
The Bindon Aiming Concept you are talking about in your last paragraph does work, but can be a bit slower.

I prefer a magnified optic for any kind of "distant" work myself due to the shapes my eyes are in, but Aimpoints rule for close in work. An Aimpoint with a magnifier in a LaRue pivot mount is also a good combination.

The various 1-4x scopes in the market are also making a good showing of themselves. Trijicon makes one that is very good for the money you pay (probably one of the better options in the sub $1K range)

Yet another option is to mount an Aimpoint Micro at the 1 o'clock position or so, so you can have a good primary magnified optic yet roll the rifle slightly to bring your red dot into play. LaRue and Knight's Armament make very good mounts for this purpose.

Steve in PA
June 18, 2010, 09:40 PM
So, you compared a 4x sighting device to a 1x sighting device....and got better results from the 4x? At 100 yards that would be expected. You would have got even better results from something with 6x. Doesn't mean the 6x is a better sighting device. It only means the great magnification brings the target in closer.

The EOtech works just fine for these very, very close to 50 eyes.

taliv
June 18, 2010, 09:44 PM
Travis, thanks for the write up.

if you ever plan to cruise through middle-TN with some time to kill, send me a PM. We'll break out the shot timer for you, and a nice assortment of aimpoint, acog, and various 1-4x scopes with several different flavors of muzzle breaks and FHs.

Tim the student
June 18, 2010, 10:30 PM
Good write up. Thanks. Sounds like you had some fun too.

But... you are comparing apples to oranges. They have two different purposes. Try clearing a room or a whole house using an ACOG as a sight and then an Eotech as a sight and let us know what you like better then.

speaksoftly
June 18, 2010, 10:31 PM
With all due respect, I don't think this can be anywhere near a valid comparison without using a magnifier on the Eotech. The standalone Eotech isn't meant to shoot far distances without a magnifier. If you're making a comparison then the Eotech, magnifier, and flip up mount can be bought for less than most Trijicons. Not only will this allow the Eotech to have the same 4X magnification as the Trijicon, but the flip up mount will allow the magnifier to easily be snapped out of the way. This will allow the shooter to only utilize the Eotech for close range shooting (definitely not a capability of the Trij).

taliv
June 18, 2010, 10:37 PM
eh, you can still use the acog at very close range, it's just a bit slower.

and the acog is still going to make it easier to shoot tiny groups compared to the eotech with a 4x magnifier because the tip of the chevron is far more precise than the dots, and that is exacerbated by the magnification where that 1moa dot turns into a 4moa dot

brboyer
June 18, 2010, 10:42 PM
As others have said, your comparison is apples and oranges.

Different rifles, different conditions, different ranges, magnified vs. not, etc. etc.

speaksoftly
June 18, 2010, 10:43 PM
eh, you can still use the acog at very close range, it's just a bit slower.

and the acog is still going to make it easier to shoot tiny groups compared to the eotech with a 4x magnifier because the tip of the chevron is far more precise than the dots, and that is exacerbated by the magnification where that 1moa dot turns into a 4moa dot

Just my two cents but I would imagine that "just a bit slower" isn't a risk I would want to take when thinking in terms of a combat related rifle. My response to the second half of your statement is a quote from benEzra.

This is true of most optics, but is not true of the Eotech. This is the case because the Eotech's center dot is actually diffraction limited by the human eye; it is considerably smaller than 1 MOA and only appears ~1 MOA because the human eye is physically incapable of displaying the dot at its actual, much-smaller size (any point light source will always appear to bloom to the eye's minimum resolution limit). If you throw a 4x magnifier in front of it, the background is magnified 4X, but the dot is still diffraction-limited and thus still appears ~1 MOA. So with the Eotech, you have the unusual situation of being able to magnify the view without magnifying the dot.

brboyer
June 18, 2010, 10:44 PM
eh, you can still use the acog at very close range, it's just a bit slower.

and the acog is still going to make it easier to shoot tiny groups compared to the eotech with a 4x magnifier because the tip of the chevron is far more precise than the dots, and that is exacerbated by the magnification where that 1moa dot turns into a 4moa dot
Actually, the EOthingy dot apperas to the human eye at a consistent 1 MOA even with a magnifier.

alohachris
June 19, 2010, 01:06 AM
A more accurate comparison would have been to shoot with the Eotech at 25 yards and the Trijicon at 100 yards to compare magnified to unmagnified.

possum
June 19, 2010, 01:19 AM
good write up thanks for sharing. i have an acog on my work gun, and even though i don't really like using them for 25meters and closer, i have been training hard with it, and getting as good as i can. lso shooting from awkward postions is tuff, ie supine, urban prone, sbu etc, but i am getting used to it bit by bit. i have made some really long distance hits with it though.

i have an eotech on my personal ar, because in reality if i ever had to use my ar it would be less than 25yds in a defensive sittuation, if for some crazy un forseen reason i had to shoot out to 300yds i know i could with it, but at that point i probally wouldn't be defending myself.

i like the eotech because i am very fast with it, and very accurate at realistic deffensve ranges. and in all the wild positions that i might find mysef in in a fight.

overall i prefer the eotech for personal use. my work gun it depends on the ao that i am working in. my first 2 deployments, i would have been better off with an rds, this one i am better off with an acog.

esheato
June 19, 2010, 01:31 AM
I have an ACOG on my 223 AR and an EOtech on my 9mm AR. Enough said.

Double Naught Spy
June 19, 2010, 06:47 AM
The Bindon Aiming Concept you are talking about in your last paragraph does work, but can be a bit slower.

My brother could do it fairly well, but for those whose eyes aren't properly aligned (like those who don't do well with 3-D glasses at the movie theatre), BAC is a bit of a fantasy or cause of headache. Sadly, I am of that group, but I really like my ACOGs none the less.

killchain
June 19, 2010, 08:59 AM
Comparing an unmagnified sight to a magnified sight at the same ranges is going to have a skewed response.

That is like trying to compare the ACOG to the EOTech for <25m short range marksmanship drills.

armoredman
June 19, 2010, 09:26 AM
Thanks for the efforts. I have an EOTech for one reason only - I could barely justify the cost. There was no way I could justify the cost of an ACOG whatsoever. I like it. :) Heavy sucker, but it works.

Shooting it like this...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/vz%20at%20200%20yards/010.jpg


...gave me this at 200 yards.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/vz%20at%20200%20yards/016.jpg


I am sure your AR is far more accurate, but this works for me. Like I said, if I could have justified the expense, when I had the money, I might have gone ACOG, but for my range toy/Homeland Defense Rifle, on my salary, I couldn't. :) Thanks again for the range report.

coyote
June 19, 2010, 09:43 AM
i've used both extensively outdoors in a rural environment where house-clearing isn't an issue.

i agree with most here - its apple vs oranges.

seeing that i don't carry apple and orange rifles at the same time, i had to pick one. i wanted a "long range" weapon (beyond 25 yds) so picked the acog.

i've been using mine (which has a three-digit serial number, purchased new the first year they came out) for something like 25 years and have no problem making consistent hits to 600 yds (and can continue to make hits out to 800, but with a less-than-perfect hit count).

also, the acog doesn't require batteries or constant brightness adjusting.

although i picked the acog, i have seriously tested the eotech for the same mission uses and have also been able to make hits out to 600 yds, its just nowhere as easy to accomplish. (during testing the earliest eotech model, i assisted their engineers to make a number of design changes after discovering the original N-battery version's shortcomings. those changes have been incorporated in all later versions, many of which i've owned).

what esheato said above makes a lot of sense: "I have an ACOG on my 223 AR and an EOtech on my 9mm AR".

my two cents...

Ragnar Danneskjold
June 19, 2010, 09:53 AM
So, you compared a 4x sighting device to a 1x sighting device....and got better results from the 4x? At 100 yards that would be expected. You would have got even better results from something with 6x. Doesn't mean the 6x is a better sighting device. It only means the great magnification brings the target in closer.

Pretty much this. A comparison of a unmagnified close combat optic with a magnified medium range optic is essentially meaningless. They aren't meant for the same things, so the obviously will not perform the same when being tested. If your test had been you running through a semi-dark building, bursting into a room and seeing how fast you can put effective rounds on 2 or 3 targets, I have a feeling the EOTech would have shown it's true strengths.

They are both fine optics. I will say that I have found Trijicon products to be slightly more durable in the field than EOTech, but EOTechs are still a great optic for close combat in a dynamic environment. If I lived in a state that trusted me enough to allow me to buy and SBR, I would have a 10.5" AR with an EOTech and then switch my current 16" AR over to having a 3x ACOG. The open field of view of the EOTech is better for fast paced combat that a tube style optic.

The test was flawed from the start when you tried to test a close range optic against a longer range one, on long range terms. Your test was stacked against the EOTech from the start.

taliv
June 19, 2010, 10:00 AM
hmm... that's interesting. I have shot eotechs quite a lot, but only put the magnifier in front of my aimpoints, so i didn't realize they might be different. I will try that sometime. i'm still somewhat skeptical about the 'diffraction limited' explanation. thanks for correcting me though.

EddieNFL
June 19, 2010, 11:14 AM
IMO the Trijicon Reflex w/chevron would be a a more suitable comparison against the EOTECH. I have carbines set up with each. I give the accuracy edge to the Reflex and speed to the EOTECH.

My 20 power Ziess is more accurate than the AGOG 4X.

taliv
June 19, 2010, 11:33 AM
My 20 power Ziess is more accurate than the AGOG 4X.

well, it might be more 'precise'

gunnie
June 19, 2010, 12:42 PM
..."If your test had been you running through a semi-dark building, bursting into a room and seeing how fast you can put effective rounds on 2 or 3 targets, I have a feeling the EOTech would have shown it's true strengths."...

+1 was thinking the same thing, and THIS:

try setting a target up on an endless loop [tied together at both ends] of 1/4" rope, with pulleys on both ends. have a buddy pull the rope as fast as he can from behind ABSOLUTE sure cover. shoot at the moving target, with both eyes open. the "both eyes open" part is the forte of the EOT.

what you will come up with is the EO is good for close range, poorly illuminated and moving targets. VERY FAST. the acog, even if it was a 1X unit, blocks out too much view with the scope body.

solution- as stated above mount a small halographic to the side, or on top of the acog.

http://www.valhallaarmory.com/3_9X42_Ultimate_AR_15_Scope_p/st3942g-ult.htm

i also find the triangle emits too much light for very dark use from an acog, closing the pupil enough that a previously visible target is no longer. the eo can be adjusted down in brightness for this.

gunnie

EddieNFL
June 19, 2010, 02:10 PM
well, it might be more 'precise'

Semantics...

Travis McGee
June 19, 2010, 10:20 PM
Sorry guys for the "post and run" thread but I'm on the road with very little computer time. I just thought I'd write up my impressions of the two sights, shooting semi-rapid at 100 meters as a starting point for discussion. Of course it's apples and oranges to compare a 1X and a 4X sight, but they are two of the most popular flavors out there, and 100 yard offhand semi-rapid was meant as a fair "mid range" test of both systems, naturally giving the edge to EOTech closer and Trijicon further. The main point was just to initiate discussion and see what folks thought.

Well, looks like my computer time is about up for tonight! Later gators!

Matt on the FL west coast (for a change).

Blackbeard
June 20, 2010, 10:53 AM
I agree that the two optics are made for very different purposes. To evaluate them only against midrange stationary targets, of course the one designed for that is going to come out ahead. It's kind of like comparing a Ford F150 and a Ferrari by measuring how much timber they can haul.

Travis McGee
June 20, 2010, 11:18 AM
Blackbeard, both rifles should be in their prime at 100 yards. To say an EOTech isn't designed for accuracy at 100 yards is foolish.

Remember, I wasn't bench testing for accuracy, but for "combat accuracy" offhand standing, firing 30 round mags at about a one second pace.

Both are "combat sights" touted for speed and accuracy, and 100 yards is surely not "too far" for a 1X EOTech with a 1MOA center dot. If 100 yards, standing offhand semi-rapid fire is "too far" for an EOTech, then everybody should toss them out. If a combat sight isn't deadly at 100 yards, it's worthless, and I don't care how fast it is at 20 yards.

strambo
June 20, 2010, 11:58 AM
The ACOG is a great sight, but had a pretty good advantage in the 100yd comparison which played to its strengths (I did enjoy the write up). I had one in Afghanistan and it was a great all around optic for that environment as I was patrolling mostly the countryside.

I was definitely slower 25yds and in, plus the tritium wasn't real bright at night. I love my Aimpoint H1 that I have on my personal AR for a general combat type sight where I'll (in an HD or SHTF situation) likely be using it close up (certainly no more than 50-100 max). The ACOG really starts to shine at 50 and out, but the most likely (and desperate) circumstance for most citizens would be up close, possibly feet but certainly less than 50 yds in most cases. I want my carbine optimized for the most likely and most time-critical, engagements. The Aimpoiont/Eotech will still enable torso his to 300yds and most soldiers find hitting at range easier with the dots than the irons (but not the 'COG ;) ).

For longer out...I can just have a different gun!

benEzra
June 20, 2010, 06:17 PM
hmm... that's interesting. I have shot eotechs quite a lot, but only put the magnifier in front of my aimpoints, so i didn't realize they might be different. I will try that sometime. i'm still somewhat skeptical about the 'diffraction limited' explanation. thanks for correcting me though.
Taliv, see this white paper, frame 22:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/DayII/SessionII/05Gallagher_SmallArms_Sight_Oppurtunity.pdf

Holographic sight provides true point source as aim point
• Dot size limited only by eye resolution to 1 m.o.a.
• Placing 4X scope behind sight magnifies target scene 4X but dot size remains 1 m.o.a.
• Effective dot size is 0.25 m.o.a. or 1" at 400 yards
• Aiming dot provided by holographic sight, placement of magnified scope not critical
• Not true with red-dot sight where image of LED is projected
– If magnified scope is placed behind sight, dot is magnified with target scene – no gain in aiming precision
– If magnified scope is in front of sight, target scene is shifted relative to aiming dot, re-zeroing is required. Long eye relief also severely restricts FOV
With a red dot sight, you're looking at a reflection of a tiny LED, hence the difficulty in making it smaller than about 2 MOA, and when you put a magnifier behind it you magnify the reflection along with the background image. With an Eotech, on the other hand, you are looking at a completely synthetic image generated by a laser interacting with two diffraction gratings, so the central dot can be arbitrarily small.

According to that paper, the dot is a true point source; it is effectively 1 MOA with a Mark 1 eyeball behind it, 0.33 MOA with a 3x magnifier behind it, 0.25 MOA with a 4x magnifier behind it, etc. Your eye will never see it as subtending less than 1 MOA because that is essentially the "pixel size" of the human visual system for that wavelength (it's actually the diffraction limit, but it's a good analogy).

BTW, I found the following pics of an Eotech without and with magnification (I think it's a 557) here:

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/defensive-rifles-shotgun-discussion/102380-holographic-sights-2.html

No magnifier:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y6/los3088/EOTechphotos00925.jpg


4x magnifier:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y6/los3088/EOTechphotos01125.jpg


Note that the 65 MOA ring is larger, but the central dots are still as small as the camera can resolve them. This particular reticle is a BDC for 5.56x45mm out to 500 yards, I think.

Travis McGee
June 20, 2010, 06:54 PM
BenEzra: Very cool info. I didn't know any of that. Thanks.

strambo
June 20, 2010, 09:14 PM
Ooooh, ahhhhh...

I'm an Aimpoint kinda guy, but that Eotech w/ BDC reticule and magnifier is sweet! I didn't know that about the dot size re: Eotech either, makes sense once the technology is explained.

arizona98tj
June 20, 2010, 10:25 PM
Blackbeard, both rifles should be in their prime at 100 yards. To say an EOTech isn't designed for accuracy at 100 yards is foolish.

Remember, I wasn't bench testing for accuracy, but for "combat accuracy" offhand standing, firing 30 round mags at about a one second pace.

Both are "combat sights" touted for speed and accuracy, and 100 yards is surely not "too far" for a 1X EOTech with a 1MOA center dot. If 100 yards, standing offhand semi-rapid fire is "too far" for an EOTech, then everybody should toss them out. If a combat sight isn't deadly at 100 yards, it's worthless, and I don't care how fast it is at 20 yards.


I don't think anyone was saying that the EOTech can't be expected to perform at 100 yards. I have one on my FNH SLP and can vouch for what it can do at 100 yds off hand.

At the same time, I wouldn't pretend to think that an EOTech is in its "prime" at 100 yards. It certainly is within what should be its functional range....but at its prime? No. That is silly speak.

taliv
June 20, 2010, 11:33 PM
interesting benezra, but doesn't the magnification totally screw up any of the other dots, which presumably are hold-over points for different ranges? they look like they're different

c5_nc
June 21, 2010, 09:45 AM
I think OP missed the point of a 1x, which is target acquisition speed. Two equal shooters engage each other at same time, even at 100yds. The person with the ACOG has a bullet hole in their chest before they have time to center on target at 4x and fire. Yes, so its not as accurate it may be in the stomach or shoulder, etc. There are huge trade offs in speed and any type of short range combat, which is why people mount red dots on top of their ACOGs.

Blackbeard
June 21, 2010, 10:12 AM
If you want a test that shows the EOTech's strengths, try this. Set up ten silhouette targets at various ranges from 5 to 50 yards and different angles & elevations. Now see how fast you can put one hole in each of them with the two different optics. I bet the EOTech comes out ahead.

benEzra
June 21, 2010, 10:12 AM
interesting benezra, but doesn't the magnification totally screw up any of the other dots, which presumably are hold-over points for different ranges? they look like they're different
No, all the dots are all diffraction-limited, and their position relative to the background doesn't change. The only thing the magnifier changes is how big the background looks to your eye. The dots have more space between them as the image is magnified, but POA/POI is independent of the magnification, and (assuming proper zero) the 500-yard dot is a 500-yard hit at 1X, 3X, 4X, or 10X if they made a 10X magnifier. It also doesn't matter if the magnifier is a little off-center, as a hologram can be made parallax free (the only error from being off-center is the offset from the line of sight, but there is no angular parallax).

eye5600
June 21, 2010, 01:56 PM
As others have said, your comparison is apples and oranges.


But sometimes you're making fruit salad. Or, to paraphrase Don Rumsfield, you compare the scopes you've got, not the scopes you wish you'd got.

Zak Smith
June 22, 2010, 12:19 AM
Qualitative breakdown of carbine optics:


http://demigodllc.com/photo/PRM-2006.11/icon/D100_5378_img.jpg
article | Fighting Carbine Optics http://demigodllc.com/icon/extwh3.png (http://demigodllc.com/articles/fighting-carbine-optics-for-the-ar-15)

Pretty much this. A comparison of a unmagnified close combat optic with a magnified medium range optic is essentially meaningless. They aren't meant for the same things, so the obviously will not perform the same when being tested
Absolutely not meaningless- an experiment that is controlled and the only variable is the optic will reveal the speed/accuracy tradeoffs of the optics. Get a rifle, put the optics in some LaRue mounts, and set up a simple course of fire and get to work with a shot timer. This can teach you a lot about your own ability and limitations and those of the equipment. The only "trick" is to do an actual experiment with controls, etc, that will provide the answers to the questions you think you're asking, and not just a set of arbitrary data that is not comparable.

Justin
June 22, 2010, 12:33 AM
But Zak, going out to the range and actually shooting is just so difficult!. It's much easier to grouse about other people's range tests than to actually go out and figure this sort of thing on your own.

statelineblues
June 23, 2010, 07:04 PM
A friend of mine just got his first AR (:D), and is looking for a sight system similar to the ACOG or EOTech - just not as expensive (he started a new job and doesn't have alot of $$$ at the moment) - any suggestions would be helpful!

benEzra
June 23, 2010, 08:04 PM
A friend of mine just got his first AR, and is looking for a sight system similar to the ACOG or EOTech - just not as expensive (he started a new job and doesn't have alot of $$$ at the moment) - any suggestions would be helpful!
Hmmm. The Eotech 516 is about $440, which is still plenty steep, so if that's out of his price range then I've heard relatively good things about the Primary Arms knockoffs of Aimpoints, and the Vortex Strikefire. The Primary Arms Micro is about $80 (or $108 including a riser for a lower-1/3 cowitness) and the Vortex Strikefire is about $150.

Here's an m4carbine.net thread on the Primary Arms Micro, which is probably the best of the sub-$100 optics, bar none. The customer service is also reportedly quite good.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=53171

The manufacturer's page:

http://www.primaryarms.com/product.sc?productId=303

You do get what you pay for---it's not as durable as an Aimpoint Micro, the optical quality isn't quite as good, and battery life is 250 hours instead of 50,000 hours---but it's $80-$110 instead of $500. Notice that you'll need the $29 riser to get a lower 1/3 cowitness, or $108 total.

Another decent optic, albeit more expensive (but not necessarily superior) is the Vortex Strikefire.

http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-strikefire-red-dot-scope-red-dot-only-ar15-mount

m4carbine.net thread on the Strikefire:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=51173&highlight=strikefire+primary

On the Vortex, it has been mentioned that the red-dot-only version (the one I linked) is better for serious use than the red/green-dot version, because the latter doesn't go as bright and can wash out in bright sunlight.

From personal experience, I'd suggest avoiding all other inexpensive red dots. I tried a $40 Tasco ProPoint from Walmart (zero wandered some, serious parallax issues, the tube coating flaked off inside the tube and scratched the inside of the front lens) and a $45 NCStar reflex sight (built like a toy, matchbox-car-metal battery cover was 100x easier to crossthread than to screw on straight and was almost impossible to avoid scratching the lens with, and wouldn't cowitness). And avoid at all costs the fake Chinese made Eotech "replicas" that are actually just cheaply made red dots intended for Airsoft toys.

Tim the student
June 23, 2010, 08:17 PM
A friend of mine just got his first AR (), and is looking for a sight system similar to the ACOG or EOTech - just not as expensive (he started a new job and doesn't have alot of $$$ at the moment) - any suggestions would be helpful!

I haven't read any reviews of them, but I bet this is a good durable product :http://www.valdada.com/product/81e63ffe-067e-477a-b577-8c2725b2093a.aspx. I was able to get my hands on one from my local guy (who I think was charging $200, but I may be mistaken), and I liked it, FWIW. I can't imagine Valdada putting out crap. Battery life is significantly shorter though.

Avenger29
June 23, 2010, 09:51 PM
A friend of mine just got his first AR (), and is looking for a sight system similar to the ACOG or EOTech - just not as expensive (he started a new job and doesn't have alot of $$$ at the moment) - any suggestions would be helpful!

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/UniversalWaste/images/j0405586_1.jpg

Tell him to save his money and in the meantime get as much shooting experience with as many different kinds/brands of optics as possible. This is the most practical option. Lots of research + hands on test drives leads one to make better choices.

speaksoftly
June 23, 2010, 10:17 PM
Nice pics benEzra. That Eotech 557 is the exact model I have and I could not be more in love with it. Since the day I sighted it in, I knew I was an Eotech man.

If you enjoyed reading about "ACOG vs EOTech Range Report" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!