EOTech safety warning from army

[cncswiss1]

USSOCOM Issues Safety of Use Message for EOTech Enhanced Combat Optical Sights - Plus More Goings On - Soldier Systems Daily

interesting read.

 

[cncswiss1]

after mulling over the article 1 moa/40° isn't that bad, or is it? with a 1 moa dot it would be noticable.

 

[phylodog]

Bad news for EOTech

http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-...ETY-OF-USE-MESSAGE-14-September-2015-Copy.pdf

 

[pudly]

Interesting. No announcement from EOTech yet at their web site or Facebook page.

 

[phylodog]

Can't imagine they're in a hurry to advertise this

 

[pudly]

No one is eager to have to deal with a recall. It is about taking responsibility and informing customers about a problem that can potentially cost lives.

 

[cbhausen]

Dupe:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/accessories-gear/394728-bad-news-eotech.html

 

[cbhausen]

Dupe:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ussion/394717-eotech-safety-warning-army.html

 

[Hop]

It says "+/- 4 MOA shift at -40 Deg F and 122 Deg F." I can see that being a bigger issue at 122 than -40.
EOTech are virtually paralax free. The dot you see is not inside of the sight. It's about 25 yards away.
Temperature drift "between 4 and 6 MOA parallax error depending on temperature conditions"??? The holographic film plate inside the sight is attached to a erector & moves when temperature changes just like a scope reticle or RDS would. What's the normal published drift on a scope or RDS?

 

[wsenefeld]

They expect to be paying out a settlement amount of $26,000,000 in the near future.

The users manual now says "approximately 0.5 MOA per click" where before it said "0.5 MOA per click."

As I've said on here many times before, not a fan of EOTech. This comes as no surprise.

 

[wsenefeld]

Dupe:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/accessories-gear/394728-bad-news-eotech.html

How is it a dupe when the OP posted 3 hours before the thread you are referencing?

 

[Denny347]

Hmmm, I guess I'm fortunate that my 512 has worked without issue for the last 7 years on my patrol rifle. Now the coldest it's ever gotten was maybe -5 or so while sitting in my trunk so it is still inside the temp range.

 

[cbhausen]

I did that for both threads so hopefully the mods will merge them. No offense intended. Sometimes it doesn't matter which thread started first. The idea is to keep all the info in one place which is better for all.

 

[phylodog]

"The systems have the potential of approximately a +/-2 MOA zero shift upon return to ambient (73°F) after being exposed to any temperature between -40°F and 122°F"

There are many units out there which have been working fine but I'm not comfortable with the situation in an optic which could be called upon for the defense of life.

 

[pudly]

Hmmm, I guess I'm fortunate that my 512 has worked without issue for the last 7 years on my patrol rifle.

The 512 isn't among those listed in the bulletin. They didn't use the retail names, but the models affected are: EXPS3, Mk56, 553, and two grenade launcher sights.

 

[Denny347]

The 512 isn't among those listed in the bulletin. They didn't use the retail names, but the models affected are: EXPS3, Mk56, 553, and two grenade launcher sights.

Ahhh, thx. Makes me feel better.

 

[pudly]

Ahhh, thx. Makes me feel better.

No problem, but I still recommend that you check your grenade launchers.

 

[Alamo]

The 512 isn't among those listed in the bulletin. They didn't use the retail names, but the models affected are: EXPS3, Mk56, 553, and two grenade launcher sights.

Does the 512 have a military counterpart? The PMO no doubt tested only the ones they have on contract, not the whole EOTech line. I have no idea how much EOTechs civilian offerings overlap the military ones. If I had a 512, I'd also be curious to know if any, and which, parts of the 512 are also used on one of the affected sights.

 

[lawrra]

Where's the my optic is better than your optic thread?

 

[tradertator]

If anyone needs help disposing of their 553 or EXPS3, I'd be happy to help you out.