Eotech XPS2

[Hmac]

I was going to post some mathematical formals that would probably confuse you and your copy/paste information from wikipedia/arfcom. I'm glad I refrained from doing that and instead decided to drink some more beer. I'll also admit that I didn't quite like the prospect of using this forum to render mathematical symbols properly.

The EoTechs and most other holographic sights are completely parallax free. The only real parallax would come from imperfections in the flat diffusion/projection layer the laser diode image is projected upon, or the unparallel alignment of surfaces to each other . This is completely contrary to the reflex system used in red dot sights, along with the convex optics they utilize.

Completely different technologies, and completely different results as you've so eloquently outlined in your own post.

You have no "mathematical formulas". By your own admission, your "evidence" is Eotech's marketing hype from their website. Aimpoint makes the same claim of being parallax free on their website. You're just wrong.

Why is it such s big deal to you that you'd even resort to personal attack? Both are good platforms. Both have parallax, but the amount is negligible for the purpose of a combat sighting system. I'll play this out as long as you want to waste the bandwidth but its a pretty silly argument.

[20mm]

You have no "mathematical formulas". By your own admission, your "evidence" is Eotech's marketing hype from their website. Aimpoint makes the same claim of being parallax free on their website.

Why is it such s big deal to you that you'd even resort to personal attack? Both are good platforms. Both have parallax, but the amount is negligible for the purpose of a combat sighting system. I'll play this out as long as you want to waste the bandwidth but its a pretty silly argument.

Did you even use your own logic to test your conclusions? I guess we're both wrong and they're both parallax free!

[Hmac]

You have no "mathematical formulas". By your own admission, your "evidence" is Eotech's marketing hype from their website. Aimpoint makes the same claim of being parallax free on their website.

Why is it such s big deal to you that you'd even resort to personal attack? Both are good platforms. Both have parallax, but the amount is negligible for the purpose of a combat sighting system. I'll play this out as long as you want to waste the bandwidth but its a pretty silly argument.

Did you even use your own logic to test your conclusions? I guess we're both wrong and they're both parallax free!

No, I think Aimpoint's claim is bogus too. You must have missed the point where I said both have parallax.

[Dave Timm]

I don't have a dog in this fight but the reality is they both have some paralax. I've explained this in classes I teach and the best way to demo it is with just the sight. I set the sight on a table, then line up the sight to a post it note on the wall with a marker dot on it. So now you have the sight perfectly zeroed on the dot on the wall. Now with the sight just sitting on the edge of the table, move your head around, you can see the reticle, either Eotech or Aimpoint, move around the dot. There is a small amount of paralax in both sight systems. Yes I get both companies say they don't, and the reality is they both have such minimal paralax its a non issue. I've had the pleasure of speaking with reps from both companies and they both have admitted they both have a minimal amount of "reticle shift" depending upon eye position. Again its so minimal you would never really notice it, especially when you have cheek weld on a rifle. Take the optic off and set it on the table and have someone put up a post it note with a small dot and you can see for yourself. The amount of movement you do in the table test is unrealistic compared to having cheek weld on a rifle but you can see the paralax.

ETA I just grabbed an Ampoint M4 and did the same test, same thing some reticle shift. This is to proove I'm not a hater of. One or the other. I generally prefer aimpoints but I did just pick up an Eotech again to play around with. I like leaving the optic on with the battery life, the durability and reliability of aimpoints. The old eotechs left a bad taste in my mouth. For my use in my "day" job being able to grab and go with a rifle and not worry about turning my optic on is very important.

Just my 3 cents (added one due to inflation)
Dave

[MNGunGuy]

It's reasonably priced and offers very little that the top of the line Comp ML4s doesn't.
s

That depends on what very little means to you. The M4 uses a common aa battery, has nearly 3 times the battery life, 6 additional daylight/NV setting and is made with extruded aluminum. The Pro is a solid value never-the-less.

[tac870]

I had an XPS2 and it was a battery hog. Even when it was off it consumed batteries. I also did not like the automatic timer. The field of view is nice, but you can turn an Aimpoint on and leave it on for 1-2 years without worry. The 2moa dot is the way to go on an Aimpoint. This is just my humble opinion.

[grousemaster]

I had an XPS2 and it was a battery hog. Even when it was off it consumed batteries. I also did not like the automatic timer. The field of view is nice, but you can turn an Aimpoint on and leave it on for 1-2 years without worry. The 2moa dot is the way to go on an Aimpoint. This is just my humble opinion.

A no brainer at that

[mecra]

I have an EXPS3 and haven't experienced your problem.

Aimpoints are nice, but when I put an Aimpoint side by side with an EOtech, I wanted the EOtech. Better FOV and no lens tint were the deciding factors for me. When you have sights of such high quality as these two, it comes down to just preference. I have a military buddy that can't stand AP but loves his EOtech. Again, preference. I even had my wife look through them and she preferred the EOtech. -shrug-

However, for another AR build, one that's as light as it can be, I may go with an Aimpoint for that particular gun, but I have to find a version I enjoy looking through. Even now, I just went to the AP website and looked at the Pro. It doesn't excite me in the least. Some of their smaller models may though.

[Hmac]

I have an EXPS3 and haven't experienced your problem.

Aimpoints are nice, but when I put an Aimpoint side by side with an EOtech, I wanted the EOtech. Better FOV and no lens tint were the deciding factors for me. When you have sights of such high quality as these two, it comes down to just preference. I have a military buddy that can't stand AP but loves his EOtech. Again, preference. I even had my wife look through them and she preferred the EOtech. -shrug-

However, for another AR build, one that's as light as it can be, I may go with an Aimpoint for that particular gun, but I have to find a version I enjoy looking through. Even now, I just went to the AP website and looked at the Pro. It doesn't excite me in the least. Some of their smaller models may though.

If you have concerns about tint or FOV with the 30mm tube Aimpoints, you won't like the Aimpoint Micro T-1 or H-1 with their 20mm tube.

I have an EXPS3 (OPMOD). I've not had battery issues either. It gives plenty of warning on low battery, CR123s are easy to come by, and can beasily stored right on the rifle. I do find the rotating dial of the Aimpoints easier to use than the Eotech's buttons. I shoot with both eyes open, have no FOV concerns with 30mm Aimpoint vs Eotech.

[MNGunGuy]

If you have concerns about tint or FOV with the 30mm tube Aimpoints, you won't like the Aimpoint Micro T-1 or H-1 with their 20mm tube.

If you are using either correctly (both eyes open) you shouldn't have FOV issues. I found the smaller tubes to block less peripheral vision (T-1/H-1 and even the M4s) compared to the M4 and Pro.

[Hmac]

If you have concerns about tint or FOV with the 30mm tube Aimpoints, you won't like the Aimpoint Micro T-1 or H-1 with their 20mm tube.

If you are using either correctly (both eyes open) you shouldn't have FOV issues. I found the smaller tubes to block less peripheral vision (T-1/H-1 and even the M4s) compared to the M4 and Pro.

\
As I opined earlier in this thread, field of view relative to "situational awareness" is not impaired because you are shooting with both eyes open, and I agree it makes no difference Eotech vs Aimpoint vs Aimpoint Micro in that regard. I might even agree with you that the smaller profile of the micros blocks less peripheral vision. What I find bothersome with the micros is the decreased field of view into the optic to pick up the red dot due to the narrower angles. Head position is more critical. Too much off axis and I wind up hunting for the red dot more than I would like. It's not a deal-breaker, just a general observation. If I thought there was a great reason to use a micro over a standard 30mm tube, or even an Eotech, then I'd suck it up. Since I don't, there's no need to suck it up. I don't care for the micro and its touted benefits dont' outweigh its downside. For me.

[ferch]

I personally have EOTechs because I like the smaller 1moa center dot when precision matters, but still have the large 65 moa outter dot to pick up the recticle fast. You sure have to love the battery life and ruggedness of Aimpoint though. Both brands definitely have good qualities and the best answer is to get some of each!

[mecra]

Kinda why when I build my LW rifle (if I ever get the chance due to laws) I want to look at an AP. Eotechs are heavy obviously. We'll see though... I don't know if I'll ever like tube style red dots. I may just have to go with something really small like the burris fast sights. I know EOtech has one of those but not sure about AP.

[fabb600]

I haven't compared to the Aimpoints, but I used my EOTech for the first time yesterday and I loved it. My eyes are a bit touchy so would like to compare to the Aimpoint with both eyes open and see if there is one that works better than the other for me.

[Glocktwenty3]

I'm not too worried about the battery life, if I was LEO I would be concerned how long I can leave it on continuous. I like window vs. round sight of the aimpoint.