EOTech giving owners full refund for holographic sights

Status
Not open for further replies.
RC, I somewhat unwillingly filled out my return request on Monday evening. I just got my authorization email from EOTech.

If the brightness would have stayed the same, I'd keep it. It's weird how the whole 20 scale of brightness shifted down 3 or 4 notches. I'm afraid that it would keep going down until it would be nearly useless, so I guess I'm checking out of EOTech.

Damn. I really don't know what I'll use in place of it. Another tube of some sort? Geez, it pretty much renders my fixed rear sight useless. :(
 
From what I'm reading above, I think I know the answer to this, but does anybody make a red dot with the same or similar "circle and dot" reticle? I sure love that thing....

If not, I might just hold onto the old 512, I've never had a real problem with it other than battery life.
 
rcmodel said:
I'm considering replacing mine with the Aimpoint Pro.
Anyone have any experiance with them??
Click to expand...

I have one and I like it. The Aimpoint Micro is probably nicer in that it's smaller and the batteries last quite a bit longer (5 years when left on if I remember correctly). If turned off when not in use (very easy with their switch) Aimpoint Pro batteries will last several years.

I had two EOTech sights made in 2007. I liked the reticles but, regretably, had to admit that the best thing to do was to return them. They went out in the mail today.

Some place in the world, there are probably military/police units that use EOTech sights and aren't divesting themselves of them. What we return, will probably be refurbished and sold.
 
Received my refund / return authorization overnight on my 2006 511..

It will go in the mail later today.

This whole thing just boggles my mind.

I have never heard of getting a full refund + $15 dollars on a 9 year old product of any kind before in my life!!

rc
 
rcmodel said:
I'm considering replacing mine with the Aimpoint Pro.
Anyone have any experiance with them??

http://shop.opticsplanet.com/aimpoi...plusbox-beta&gclid=CN2kiLWV4ckCFU86gQodP9oGyw

rc
Click to expand...

Highly recommend the Aimpoint PRO. I wrote up a brief review here 3 months ago. It does what a red dot sight should do, if it's a bit bulky and slightly heavy. So far it's still running nice and bright on the original battery. It gets switched between setting 6 and 8, depending on light conditions at the range, but never turned off. Time will tell if it lives up to the 30k battery life.

Kind of surprised at the EOTech settlement and recall though. Looked through an XPS mounted on a Tavor at the range last weekend and really liked the circle-dot HUD-style gun sight. The XPS was a very close second choice for me, only losing out to the limited battery life on expensive cells.
 
Thanks!

I think I will order one once the refund check gets here.

'Dont count your chickens before they hatch' sort of thing.

Probably wouldn't do any good to order it now in the middle of the Xmas rush anyway.
People were lined up clear outside the post office at 4:45 PM today when I mailed it back!!

(Maybe there will be an after Christmas Sale on them by then too!)!

rc
 
One of my guys just got return authorization today on his Eotec that was purchased in 2000.

Most of us use Aimpoint Pros on our patrol rifles. I use one on my personal AR as well. Love them.
 
2000?

Crazy!!

Full refunds on 15 year old products??
This has to be the an all time first in any industry.

And I can find no reference to the government fine applying to refunds to civilian sales??

How can it be??

The entire cost would seem to be enough to put them out of business.

But then, it hasn't been widly publicized yet, so maybe they aren't getting that many back yet??

I would never have heard about it except for this thread started by M1key on Dec 8.


rc
 
Last edited:
I think you guys woefully underestimate the amount of business L3 does. They are multibillion dollar and some $500 refunds are barely a tax writeoff.
 
Probably so.

But it can't be doing the EOTech divisions bottom line any good in the last two-three weeks!!



PS: Cleaning out the gun cabinet drawer and came across the original Colt 3x handle mount scope I took off the SP-1 carbine 9 years ago.

It's still very clear, and is still sighted in when I put it back on.

It worked then, and will still work now.

I may just put it back on where it belongs and pocket the $365!!

Then sell the A.R.M.S. #41 carry handle mount I bought to put the EOTech on.

It would make the pencil barrel carbine a full pound lighter.
And back to original condition.

Plus
No Switches to Twitch, or Batteries to Pitch!!
You just look through the Son -- Ahhhh ----- Never mind!

image.jpg


rc
 
Last edited:
I got my 511/A65 in 2008. I've spent more time chasing batteries since then, than actually using the sight. Having bought it originally as a HD sight, I quickly realized that due to the terrible battery life, and the need to adjust the holograph brightness upon activation, it would not be a reliable system for HD emergencies. I do love the crisp sight picture and nice FOV, but as it does not fulfill it's originally intended purpose, I plan to submit a request authorization.

It would be very helpful to see an example or two of the verbiage submitted to justify the return request, from those who've successfully received authorization. Did you specifically request a refund in the 'comments' section of the RMA form?
 
No, can't do it.

They cleverly included a 'Confidentiality Note' and 'Intellectual Property' clause at the bottom of the return authorization email.

If I tell you, they will have to come kill me!!
And even worse, probably cancel my refund too!

But, I just told them I bought the sight in 2006 for a HD carbine, and it had never been usable for that because it ran battery's down turned off in storage every two months,

I gave then the purchase price of $349.99, and the sights serial number off the bottom.

They sent the return form via email the next morning.
And stating the $349.99 plus $15.00 shipping would be sent as soon as they received the sight.

I don't think they are being picky at all.
If you want a refund, for whatever reason?
I think they are going to give you one, until they run out of money.

rc
 
Last edited:
dacavasi said:
It would be very helpful to see an example or two of the verbiage submitted to justify the return request, from those who've successfully received authorization. Did you specifically request a refund in the 'comments' section of the RMA form?
Click to expand...

Yes. You have to request the refund. Below is what I wrote in the "Description of Failure" section, Xs covering details.

----------------------

I am requesting a refund due to the dimming of the sight which reduces visibility of the reticle in bright daylight.

I paid $xxx.xx for my xxx brand new from xxxx xxxx on (month, day, year).
 
Last edited:
Not only did I not enter the date or purchase price, but I wouldn't even remember those details from 2007. I didn't even see any place on the form I submitted to enter that information. I received an e-mail saying my refund had been approved and to enclose a copy of the e-mail with my returned item. I'm not sure you even have to tell them there was a problem with the sight. The only things I said was that I missed a groundhog when I should have hit it and had lost confidence in the sights since the fraud settlement.

Don't make things more complicated than they are. Answer the questions and only the questions.

The company is probably wise in the way they're handling this. If they didn't give refunds, there would probably be a class action lawsuit, attorneys would make huge amounts of money and the injured parties would receive money as well. This approach is probably costing them less in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Grumulkin said:
Not only did I not enter the date or purchase price, but I wouldn't even remember those details from 2007. I didn't even see any place on the form I submitted to enter that information. I received an e-mail saying my refund had been approved and to enclose a copy of the e-mail with my returned item.
Click to expand...

In my first refund request, EOTech emailed me saying they needed the purchase price and that I did not include it. So, I had to send in another request with the price stated.

Since my EOTech is only from 2013, I still had the box, paper work, and receipt. So, I didn't have to rely on memory.
 
Follow up: There was an email in my inbox this a.m. from L-3, stating that I did not provide the information they needed to process my return. Basically it was everything I had already provided, sans the purchase price info, which I supplied via return email.

There was no input line on the RMA form on their website for purchase price information, maybe I used the wrong form, but could not find any other 'RMA' form on the site. Anyway, will post follow up as things develop. I did actually find my original box and paperwork last night, prior to sending off the first request.
 
greyling22 said:
Think they'd sell me a returned one for like 40 bucks? I could put it on a 22.
Click to expand...

I think EOTech will possibly do what Grumulkin mentioned in post 54. They will refurb them and sell them to agencies around the world. Probably with a new program where you send them in every couple years for maintenance.

It would seem that EOTechs are a sighting system that must need maintenance more than others. Even if they haven't seen hard use.
 
dacavasi said:
Follow up: There was an email in my inbox this a.m. from L-3, stating that I did not provide the information they needed to process my return. Basically it was everything I had already provided, sans the purchase price info, which I supplied via return email.

There was no input line on the RMA form on their website for purchase price information, maybe I used the wrong form, but could not find any other 'RMA' form on the site. Anyway, will post follow up as things develop. I did actually find my original box and paperwork last night, prior to sending off the first request.
Click to expand...

From the link provided in the first post, the instructions for submitting the form said to put the purchase price in the comment section of the return request form.

You are correct, there is no "box" labeled "Purchase Price" or some fact simile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Equipment performance in Iraq
Replies
8
Views
1K
Dorian
D
T
  • Locked
Congress may make ISPs snoop on you
Replies
16
Views
811
PinnedAndRecessed
P
Ryanxia
  • Locked
Why we need to fight any proposed UBC bills
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
4K
Ryanxia
Ryanxia
C
  • Locked
NRA Stabs Virginia Gun Owner's in the Back
Replies
4
Views
1K
MicroBalrog
M
C
  • Locked
Plan to Sell Iraqis M-16s
2 3
Replies
62
Views
3K
dscottw88
D
Back
Top