Note To EOTech
BY Herschel Smith
9 years, 1 month ago
Over the past few weeks, three separate issues have come to our attention regarding EOTech’s line of Holographic Weapon Sights (HWS). While we initially thought they weren’t related as they came up one by one, we realized they were all connected once we had looked into all three. Consequently, we believe they should be presented together, along with the source documentation.
Although it’s the last one we uncovered, we’ll begin with the most glaring piece of information. On 14 September, the SOF Weapons Program Management Office at NSWC Crane released a Safety of Use Message regarding issues with EOTech’s Enhanced Combat Optical Sights (ECOS), which is how they refer to HWS. This certainly caught our attention as the PMO is responsible for USSOCOM weapons. That message ultimately serves as the linchpin, tying together the other two issues we’ll soon address.
This critical bit of information would have been a stand-alone article, but it added credence to the others and offered coherence to some otherwise inexplicable issues. It also allowed us to concentrate on the facts presented in the various documentation. We will introduce the other issues after you get a chance to read the SOUM, which was obtained by Soldier Systems Daily. The Message has no date-time-group but was transmitted via official email traffic to SOF units on 14 September, 2015 and there are no markings limiting distribution.
While there is a great deal of information in the SOUM, two glaring issues stick out. The first is the reliability of the HWS in extreme temperatures, referred to as “Thermal Drift”. The PMO has noted a +/- 4 MOA shift at -40 Deg F and 122 Deg F. Second, is the concern over the claim by EOTech that their HWS are parallax free which was the subject of a previous Safety of Use Message from the same office issued 16 March, 2015. In this case they noted between 4 and 6 MOA parallax error depending on temperature conditions. Despite the PMO working with EOTech to rectify the issues, they still have not been resolved.
Listen to me, EOTech. Just like we have noted with Remington and the Walker Fire Control System, it would have been better, cheaper and easier for Remington had they noted the problems up front, fixed them, recalled the parts, or refunded the clients. Instead, the lawyers and corporate executives got involved and things went down hill. Now, Remington is a shell of what it once was. And for good reason. I’ll be surprised if they survive except for government contracts.
Fix the problem. Come clean about it, explain it, recall it, refund the parts, or do whatever you have to do. Otherwise, you will lose market share, and permanently so. You’ve been warned.
On October 1, 2015 at 7:47 am, Cal S. said:
Well, glad I saved my pennies and went with a Vortex…
On October 4, 2015 at 8:56 am, Lina Inverse said:
Damn, this is real. Having one of these sights plus its matched scope, I confirmed the SEC Form 10-Q filing directly from the SEC’s site:
Procurement Regulations
A substantial majority of the Company’s revenues are generated from providing products and services under legally binding agreements or contracts with U.S. Government and foreign government customers. U.S. Government contracts are subject to extensive legal and regulatory requirements, and, from time to time, agencies of the U.S. Government investigate whether such contracts were and are being conducted in accordance with these requirements. The Company is currently cooperating with the U.S. Government on several investigations from which civil, criminal or administrative proceedings have or could result and give rise to fines, penalties, compensatory and treble damages, restitution and/or forfeitures. In that regard, as of June 26, 2015, the Company has recognized an aggregate liability of $26 million in anticipation of a settlement related to a product specification matter regarding a holographic weapon sight product in the Warrior Systems sector of the Electronic Systems segment….
And I just confirmed the manual change, from my paper version B to the current on-line version F.
Dropped are the lines:
Temperature: -40 to 150 F (-40 to 65 C)
Return to Zero: Repeatable to within 2 MO after re-mounting
Modified are “Waterproof” to “Water resistant”, “Fogproof” to “Fog resistant”, and under “Adjustment (per click)”, “0.5 MOA” to “Approx. 0.5 MOA” and at the end “when zeroing” has been added.
Mine is not within the warranty period, but I’m going to ask for a fix or refund, with the allegation in the Safety of Use Message that it may not return to zero, may shift +- 2 MOA (I can shoot much better than that), it is unfit for purpose. Will keep you posted on their response, if any.
On October 5, 2015 at 6:59 am, Lina Inverse said:
Got back a canned but not unresponsive reply to my email asking for repair, replacement or refund early this morning:
Hello [my first name, the Customer Service Manager went to that much trouble],
Thank you for inquiring about your EOTech sight. Thank you for inquiring about your EOTech. EOTech is committed to providing the highest quality products to our customers. The Company continues to work on improving our products and will update you when we have additional information.
Amy Miller, the Media Relations Manager at L-3 Communications, who has lots of pictures holding and firing Evil Black Rifles, is a turkey hunter, was at Vanguard USA for a decade before 6 years at L-3, was reported on September 30th as having left, although her LinkedIn profile hasn’t been updated and I otherwise haven’t been able to confirm it. At the rumor level it’s said the supply of EOTech sights to the US civilian market has dried up.
I also found this gem on their Holographic Weapon Sights Troubleshooting page, Sight Will Not Hold Zero section, after the usual mechanical issues:
EOTech users will often experience a point of impact shift away from the point of aim when the sight is used at a temperature different from the temperature at which the sight was zeroed. The point of aim shift may be greater the more extreme the temperature change. To achieve optimum accuracy, the sight should be re-zeroed whenever the temperature changes from the temperature at which the sight was zeroed.
But they’re obviously not getting out in front of the issue.
On December 27, 2015 at 1:36 am, Billy said:
I have a 512 and EXPS3 on a couple of my rifles and haven’t had any issue with them that I can recall. Then again, I’m not operating in ridiculously extreme weather and don’t give a shit that “.5 MOA” has been changed to “approx. .5 MOA.” I may think twice about picking up another EOTech in the future, but as of now I wouldn’t rule them out.