Aimpoint v. EOTech Deathmatch
Arguably, the two most popular holographic sights on the market are the Aimpoint Comp and the EOTech. Here’s the Aimpoint:
Here’s the EOTech:
Price: The EOTech can be had from about $175 (if you get the Bushnell version which lacks some bells and whistles) to $400. The Aimpoint can be had starting at $329 up to $450. The EOTech comes with a mount. With the Aimpoint, plan on dropping another $80 to $150 on a mount. Advantage: EOTech.
Battery life: EOTech from 200 to 1,100 hours. Aimpoint: 12,000 to 50,000 hours. Advantage: Aimpoint.
Ergonomics: The Aimpoint’s controls are twist knobs. The EOTech is push-button friendly. The Aimpoint is more like a rifle scope in feel whereas the EOTech is like a fighter jet targeting system. Advantage: Draw.
Reticle: Aimpoint has a 2 or 4 MOA red dot. The EOTech has a 1 MOA dot inside a 65 MOA circle. The circle can be used for a SWAG of range finding since it’s about the size of a man at 100 yards. Also, the large circle is adequate for close applications. Advantage: EOTech.
Glass Breakage: If you break the glass on your Aimpoint, game over. The EOTech will function when the glass is broken. Advantage: EOTech.
Cowitness: Both will cowitness on an AR-15. Only the Aimpoint will cowitness on an AK, if you use an UltiMAK mount. The EOTech with its built in mount sits too high for cowitnessing on the AK. Advantage, Aimpoint because cowitnessing on an AK is huge.
Night vision compatible, brightness, clarity: both come in night vision models, have brightness controls and are crystal clear. Advantage: Draw.
Environment: The Aimpoint functions at lower temperatures than the EOTech. The Aimpoint is submersible to five meters. The EOTech is supposedly waterproof (not sure how that’s defined). Advantage: Draw.
Flash: The Aimpoint dot can be seen from the other side as it projects a dot from the rear. There is a kill flash made for it. The EOTech does not project a light signature. Advantage: EOTech.
Adjustments: EOTech 0.5 MOA per click. Aimpoint 1 MOA per click. Advantage: EOTech.
By a score of 5 -2 – 3, SayUncle calls it for the EOTech. But it’s a close 5 – 2 -3.
September 29th, 2005 at 10:47 am
I’ve used both fairly extensively, and my last house gun had a HoloSight on it (mostly for reasons of economy), but I’ve decided not to scrimp on my current AR build.
The bias in the training community seems to edge in favor of the Aimpoint due to reasons of battery life and general ruggedness.
My heart says the Eotech is cooler, with its Donut O’ Death reticle (plus, Aimpoint never sent me any happenin’ tee shirts), but my head has a hard time disagreeing with Pat Rogers…
September 29th, 2005 at 11:18 am
um, what’s cowitness?
September 29th, 2005 at 11:26 am
Cowitness is where your backup iron sights look through your red dot optic. In other words, if the red dot fails, you don’t have to remove it to use the iron sights.
September 29th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Why is environment a draw – seems to me that the ability to operate at colder temperatures clearly falls in the aimpoint’s favor. Wether or not they are functional up to 5 meters (15 feet) is rather irrelevant for me as I don’t recall the last time I fired a gun 25 feet under water. Being weatherproff/water resistant is important, but I don’t care about being submersible.
Id score environment 1-0-1 in favor of Aimpoint.
Of course, All things aren’t equal and some of these catagories deserve to count more than others. Like battery life. And cowitness If the SHTF your gonna be thrilled you went with Aimpoint. Seems that the battery life and cowitnessing (on such a battery dependent feature) needs to be much more heavily weighted to Aimpoint. Same with Glass Breakage.
That would make it a 5-3-2 vote in favor of EOTech
September 29th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
It’s a draw because it’s my deathmatch 😉
Yes, cold could be an advantage but the difference is 10 degrees centigrade. Regarding battery life, you realize 1,100 hours is almost 46 days. If the SHTF longer than that, I can change batteries since I’ll obviously have time on my hands. Granted, it’s not five years.
And if your glass breaks on the aimpoint, it no worky no more. And if you have an AK and want to cowitness, you go with the Aimpoint. Period.
September 29th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
BTW, on battery life the Trijicon beats them both. It works on fiber optics and tritium, no battery needed. Supposedly lasts for 12 years.
September 29th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Some additional points:
The militarized eotechs are tough hombres: they have steel hoods, and the electronics are hardened against shock by flooding the compartment with epoxy. It’s water sealed to 15ish(???) meters, which is about as deep as I’d dive for a rifle I carelessly dropped overboard anyway. A number of different reticles are available on the Eotech, and their latest model is a lot flatter than the classic holosight.
September 29th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
well, it all doesn’t matter much, on account of your still a Glock dork. I’m still really steamed about that one. I can barely function these days and I’m going to start sending in cryptic hate male ‘n stuff.
Hmmm, how ’bout another death match. I don’t know optics so this one was interesting but not inflaming like the glock-1911 death match. That was more fun. Almost as good as reading a Ted Rall comic.
How about a combat rifle cartridge death match? The .223 sucks and you know it!
September 29th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
I would prefer the EO Tech on my AR-15 (where it resides) and an Aimpoint on an AK (both of which currently have iron sights).
I have some kind of Aimpoint copy on my M1A Socom, which seems to work fairly well.
I really like the EO Tech sight picture more than the Aimpoint dot.
It’s all a little academic for me, though, because I am a pistolero and seldom shoot my rifles.
September 29th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Ditto!
Brilliant. Carnaby Fudge might become my new favorite blog.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Ben,
Heh. Never done the glock v. 1911 deathmatch. I figure that one would really piss folks off. May have to start working one up. Maybe for that one, I should elicit reader response first? Of course, the AR v. AK never quite turned into the flameware I thought it would. And I’ll do the 223 v. 308 death match now:
Suck factor: 223 somewhat sucks. 308 doesn’t suck at all. Winner, 308 🙂
Chris, I concur for the AKA. What do you have on the SOCOM?
Countertop, how’s that not blogging thing coming? 😉
September 29th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
well, it is carnaby-riffick.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
And by the way, I like 1911s. I think they’re fine guns that feel great and can be reliable. But the Glock, Sig and H&Ks are superior in nearly every conceivable way other than ‘old fart nostalgia.’
September 29th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
well, we were flaming the glock v. 1911 thing, even without the deathmatch. Just a warm up I guess.
Now then, that cartridge deathmatch you just did sucked almost as bad as a Glock in .40sw. You should select at least 4 or 5 cartridges to square off in a no holds barred death match. The .223 will be like the token karate guy in ultimate fighting challenge who gets his ass kicked in two seconds.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
Problem with the cartridge deathmatch is there’s just so many different types of one round. How many types of 223 are there? JHP v. FMJ. 40 gr v. 55g v. 62g v. 80g? Federal v. Hornady. Milsurp v. Commercial?
Zoiks! It’d go on forever.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
I could answer how the non blogging thing was going if I was blogging, but since I’m not, I can’t cause I aint blogging and therefore can’t blog it.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
you know, the wierd thing about “zoiks!” is that it’s actually “zoinks!” Kinda dumb, and I just learned that about 3 months ago from my 4 year old. I think “zoiks!” is better styalistically.
September 29th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
“Flash: The Aimpoint dot can be seen from the other side as it projects a dot from the rear. There is a kill flash made for it. The EOTech does not project a light signature. Advantage: EOTech.”
Both emit some light forward, but the Eotech is actually visible off-bore axis, not being tube enclosed. The killflash for the Aimpoint is to remove glare from the glass lens in daylight, a problem the Eotech shares, but which can’t be as easily remedied on the latter optic.
September 29th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
Don’t think the EOTech shares that problem. With the aimpoint, it’s the funky colored front glass that causes the glare. I can’t see the light from my EOTech.
September 29th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
Come on down to the Armory; we’ll let you take all the Eotechs and Aimpoints into the darkened bathroom you’d like. I just did. 😉
September 29th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
(I am compelled to admit that I’m a distributor for both, have used them both for years, and would kick neither off the top of my carbine.)
September 29th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
The Canadian army in Afghanistan is using the EO Tech and think very highly of it, preferring it to the Canadian made ElCan system.
September 30th, 2005 at 7:01 am
I’m probably going to wind up going with the Eotech myself. The Aimpoint’s main advantages are slight edges in durability and much longer battery life, but it’s not like my bedroom is the harsh environment of the Hindu Kush, thousands of miles from the nearest source of batteries. Heck, if I get the 512, I can just loot them from the TV remote…
September 30th, 2005 at 8:30 am
I have a Bushnell Holosight, the “less rugged” version of the EOTech. I had it mounted by a gunsmith on a Legacy Puma .454 Casull. The gunsmith drilled two mounting screw holes in the barrel. He drilled them too deep, and during firing the thin bit of barrel at the bottom of a screw hole failed, the screw blew out of its hole and shot the Holosight off the gun. After I found the sight and battery housing (which had come loose from the sight), I put it back together and it still worked. Part of the battery housing is broken (where the screw shot it), but it still holds in place. So, I think the more rugged version of that is probably rugged enough, and any advantage of the Aimpoint on that score is kind of moot.
I don’t go to that gunsmith any more.
September 30th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
Carnival of Cordite #32
Welcome, readers! It is time once again for the Carnival of Cordite, a weekly round-up of blog posts on the topics of guns, shooting, the Second Amendment, self-defense, hunting, and more. If this is your first time visiting, please check
October 11th, 2005 at 8:19 am
[…] I prefer the EOTech. But Mr. Completely reviews the C-More Red Dot Sight. […]
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:02 pm
[…] I finally received all the parts for mine and put it together.I put an EOTech site on it despite the discussion I had here. I wanted a “heads up display” type sight that would co-witness with the iron sights. […]
March 16th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
[…] Now, on to the actual range report. I get their and borrow a rest since I plan on sighting it in. Since it would be an indoor range gun, my plan was to sight it in at 10 yards with the EOTech and sight the irons in at 25. I switched on the EOTech and it didn’t work. Odd, since it worked yesterday though I recall the reticle flashing to indicate low battery. I changed the battery and it still didn’t work. That and the fact a job I thought I’d landed falling through convinced me that fate was conspiring against me to ruin my day. And the irony of my Aimpoint v. EOTech deathmatch weighed on me. I had one of the guys from Coal Creek look at it and his conclusion was That’s a busted EOTech. I groaned. He recommended I contact EOTech who has good customer service. He left the range. Then, it started working. Odd, I thought but I was there to shoot. So, I fired a few rounds that were low, which was expected since it came factory zeroed. Once I got it sighted in, two 10-round groups looked like this: […]