# EO Tech Sight



## zak (17 Aug 2004)

Has anyone here used the eotech sight used by some of the boys on their c8's in afgansitan.  If so, what are your thoughts.  Is it a good replacement for the c79??


----------



## Matt_Fisher (17 Aug 2004)

I'd suggest you ask KevinB about this.  He's a good resource for small arms information.


----------



## tacsit (17 Aug 2004)

My favourite non-magnified sight in the world. I love it. Can't say enough good things about it. Some people have had them fail and I've yet to ascertain if that's just due to a bad batch or some other more in depth problem. It's simple, has a great FOV, and it's quick quick quick to sight on target. I highly recommend it.


----------



## zak (17 Aug 2004)

Is it a worthy replacement for the C79 or is it only usefull in CCO ??


----------



## tacsit (17 Aug 2004)

I really think that's up to the individual. For OBUA/CQB I'll pick a holosight any day of the week. For green work I'd prefer an ACOG. That's just me though. Keep in mind the C79 and eotech holosight are two sights which were concieved for different missions.


----------



## MG34 (17 Aug 2004)

I have found my EOTech to be quite effective out to 200m,as stated  the FOV is superior to just about any other optic out there and target aqusition is very fast.The EOTech has the added advantage in that it is 100% paralax free,and can function as long as there is 25% of the glass intact,unlike most other "red dot' sights. The night vision function is an added bonus or at least will be when DLR gets their act together and issues the PVS14 weapon mount.


----------



## KevinB (18 Aug 2004)

I think the EOTECH's are good platforms -  as  mentioned they are a CCO .

I think the section should have a mix of optics - some EOTECH's (or AImpoint M2's - user pref) and some TA31 AGOG's.
 Not all ACOG are usefull in the field - the TA01 and TA01NSN are not especially good in these roles.

The C79 is terrible in the CCO environment...


----------



## MG34 (18 Aug 2004)

I think you mean the C79 is terrible in ANY enviroment


----------



## zak (18 Aug 2004)

Ive seen pictures of americans in iraq using the eotech with some kind of scope mounted behind it.  Would that be a good choice for operations other than CCO.  I mean as opposed to issuing different sights to members in a section like KevinB said??  just a suggestion


----------



## KevinB (18 Aug 2004)

MG34 - I was trying to be somewhat diplomatic...

 EOETCH has a 3.5x adaptor that has been recently fielded as part of the ECOS II trials (part of MD/NS - SOPMODII) 
   In that trial the downselect was the XM145 Elcan (LED variant w/ M4/M855 reticle) TA31M (M4/M855 Donut reticle) and EOETCH 554 w/ 4x adaptor.

 What you have liklely seen is the PVS-14 MNVG wpn mount behind the EOTECH's as the x3.5 is not public domain yet.

Due the difference of roles and the ideal of the 4man brick beign the building block of the light inf section I think it requires a mix of kit - for curently no one sight system can do all that we require.

Even with the 3.5x adaptor the system does not have a BCD = and with the limited troop skill these days with knowledge of holderovers for trajectory/distance it is still not going to be as effective past 300m


----------



## zak (19 Aug 2004)

KevinB- Do you think its a realistic idea that  the CF will equip its light inf sects with mixed sights?  And wouldnt having mixed sights in a section cause 50% of the guys to be inaffective at anygiven time?


----------



## Tpr.Orange (19 Aug 2004)

Does anyone have a good picture of the EOtech ? 

I cant seem to find one?


----------



## scm77 (19 Aug 2004)

There's some good info here.
http://www.mdenterprise.com/eotech.htm


----------



## Jeff Boomhouwer (19 Aug 2004)

Holy Nintendo sight!! And I mean that as a compliment. I HATE the El can sight and have removed it and am using an iron one.Tunnel vision can be deadly and the C79 is useless in the winter or NBC envir. That EOtech is pretty sexy. An intgrated range finder and a company to produce it in La belle province and the C.F. might consider, no?


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2004)

I think the CF will adopt a mixed sight system.

 There is going to be an optic trial at the Inf School soon.  

It is not that the EOTECH is ineffective further out - just that it requires a better knowledge of ballistics for holdover.  It will reduce target detection and discrimation for those members at further ranges - but it is a lot better than getting your ass handed to you up close - like C79 equiped troops will.

We have a mix of sights over here - EOTECH's, C79A2 ELCAN's, then personal AIMPOINT M2's, ACOG's and Leupold M3LR (3.5-10).  Many C79A2 Equipped s\troops have pulld them off and are using the Diemaco Backup Sight.    All the C9A2 equipped troops are using iron sights (well one has an EOTECH).

 IMHO the Afghanistan deployments were the swan song of death for the C79 - too many troops don't trust them (the mount) and it is ineffective in the primary environment were are operating in (Kabul - urban)


----------



## greentips (21 Aug 2004)

Hello all, this is my first post.  

While Kevin was working, I was out shooting.... ;D  

Anyways, I did some shots with eotech and a 10.3 CQBR at 200yard.  The main problem with the eotech is that you need to be very conscious about the range that you are shooting, espeically beyond 200m. If the eotech is sighted at 100m, the drop will be about 3" at 200 yard and 15" at 300yrds.  With C77 balls out of a C7, the drop will be about 10" at 300yrds, which will hit the bottom of a fig 12.   however, the eotech is very fast from 0 to 25 yrds.  Fro most close range shots one just have to put the big circle in the centre.  

that's why I like the 4MOA aimpoint system.  As long as the target is bigger than the dot,  the shot will fall within the dot and hit the target.  If the dot is biggier than the target, forget it....go find a range finder.      




			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> It is not that the EOTECH is ineffective further out - just that it requires a better knowledge of ballistics for holdover.   It will reduce target detection and discrimation for those members at further ranges - but it is a lot better than getting your *** handed to you up close - like C79 equiped troops will.


----------



## KevinB (22 Aug 2004)

GT - good to see you here.

 But did you have to quote yourself  ;D

 I have an EOTECH 552 on my C8A2/SFW over here  (my ACOG is in Gagetown  :crybaby

But my buddy is using my M2 Aimpoint (he likes it better) on his SFW (I have some "good" cheesey hero pics but in HI-RES and need someone to chop then down.


----------



## greentips (22 Aug 2004)

I just unquoted myself :-[ :dontpanic:


----------



## Dissident (30 Jan 2015)

We have had in our possession, for the last 18 months or so, 45 EOtech 552 sights. All were installed on C8A3. We are just doing our ATI and leading to it we found three sights with terminal manufacturing defects: the prism inside came loose. The sights have been pushed up the proper chain and we are waiting for replacements.

If you want the serial numbers, pm me.

Colour me unimpressed.


----------



## sidemount (30 Jan 2015)

I'd like to say that is uncommon for EO Tech sights.....but as an EO Tech, we see these come through my shop all the time, for that very reason.

Unfortunately replacing them is about all we can do at this point, repair parts are extremely limited for EO sights.


----------



## Old EO Tech (30 Jan 2015)

sidemount said:
			
		

> I'd like to say that is uncommon for EO Tech sights.....but as an EO Tech, we see these come through my shop all the time, for that very reason.
> 
> Unfortunately replacing them is about all we can do at this point, repair parts are extremely limited for EO sights.



EO Tech sights aren't even repairable items for that matter.  But if you are receiving ones with manufacturing defects that is something that needs to be pushed to the LCMM on a DRMIS PR TFR. Or no action will be taken to fix the issue.


----------



## sidemount (30 Jan 2015)

We can get battery compartments, the god awful inserts that are in the battery compartment and th screw to hold it on the rail.....and thats about it for repair parts.


My guys BLR'd 3 yesterday for the detatched optical piece


----------



## sidemount (30 Jan 2015)

As far as I know, the LCMM is in the know of this issue....whether something is being done....well thats a different story


----------



## Dissident (31 Jan 2015)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> that is something that needs to be pushed to the LCMM on a DRMIS PR TFR.



Can you elaborate?


----------



## Dissident (31 Jan 2015)

sidemount said:
			
		

> As far as I know, the LCMM is in the know of this issue....whether something is being done....well thats a different story



Something better being done. As of right now I have a ~6% failure rate on our primary weapon system. Should we be filling UCRs?


----------



## sidemount (31 Jan 2015)

UCRs are mainly for if they show up from manufacturer broken. If they were working, then failed, see your local eme guys (eo techs) and get them to do another TFR.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (31 Jan 2015)

sidemount said:
			
		

> UCRs are mainly for if they show up from manufacturer broken. If they were working, then failed, see your local eme guys (eo techs) and get them to do another TFR.


That's not true. They are also they're to inform the bloated HQ if there is a problem with a piece of kit and possibly how it can be fixed. If enough are generated then HQ will possible look into going to a different type of item or provide insight on how to fix or minimize the problem.


----------



## sidemount (31 Jan 2015)

I look at it this way....when I see a piece of kit come in with the same problem over and over I generate a TFR and send it off to the LCMM for that piece of kit....as would be the case for the eo tech sight.

If I were to get a part in from supply to repair say a lav and that part came to me from the manufacturer broken I would generate a UCR.

Tfr for common faults (broken after we get it)
Ucr for manufacturer defects (broken before we get it) edit to add: also if the equipment does not function as intended

This is how I have always done it as a tech.


----------



## sidemount (31 Jan 2015)

Yes they are both for sure to inform higher of problems....each one just has a slightly different purpose


----------



## Nfld Sapper (31 Jan 2015)

sidemount said:
			
		

> UCRs are mainly for if they show up from manufacturer broken. If they were working, then failed, see your local eme guys (eo techs) and get them to do another TFR.





			
				Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> That's not true. They are also they're to inform the bloated HQ if there is a problem with a piece of kit and possibly how it can be fixed. If enough are generated then HQ will possible look into going to a different type of item or provide insight on how to fix or minimize the problem.



Exactly, I just staffed up a UCR for the 15-ton beaver tail that the reserve CER's have for loading the case backhoes...


----------



## Occam (31 Jan 2015)

sidemount said:
			
		

> UCRs are mainly for if they show up from manufacturer broken. If they were working, then failed, see your local eme guys (eo techs) and get them to do another TFR.



You're thinking of a PIF - Pre Installation Failure report.

A UCR can be submitted by anyone who has a concern about the condition or serviceability of an item, at any point in the equipment's life cycle.


----------



## sidemount (31 Jan 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> You're thinking of a PIF - Pre Installation Failure report.
> 
> A UCR can be submitted by anyone who has a concern about the condition or serviceability of an item, at any point in the equipment's life cycle.


Hmmm sounds about right....I have been wrong once or twice before [emoji1]


----------



## Occam (31 Jan 2015)

This LCMM looks forward to receiving UCRs...it's one of the few things I don't have to go into DRMIS for these days, and any day I don't have to start DRMIS is a good day.


----------



## sidemount (31 Jan 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> This LCMM looks forward to receiving UCRs...it's one of the few things I don't have to go into DRMIS for these days, and any day I don't have to start DRMIS is a good day.



DRMIS.....that program makes me want to smash my head through a concrete wall several times a day.....the amount of time it takes to do the DRMIS process for replacing NVG parts takes at least 3 times as long as it does to do the repair itself.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Feb 2015)

UCRs can also be used for getting funding priority, and the way things are, you need your ducks in a row to get in the cue above where ever the cut off line happens to be.  Also, unlike an email, it's official, and is tracked by other people then just the LCMM; at least over on the Navy side.

I've seen a few times where problems were "well known" on the coast, and then when I got to Ottawa, the LCMM had heard rumours, but had nothing they could take for action, didn't know who was actually having the problem, and didn't know what ship(s) it was on.

We're in a huge bureaucratic beast, but if you don't feed it and jump through the hoops, the only guarantee is that nothing will happen.  At least if you put in a UCR, and nothing happens, you can follow up on it as people are accountable to action it.

Kind of like voting; you can't complain about the politicians if you don't vote, and you can't complain about the LCMMs not doing their jobs if you don't send up the paperwork.  A lot of them are responsible for hundreds of items, so they won't necessarily even have noticed the six returns with defects unless someone raises it up.  I used to complain a lot more before I came to Ottawa and saw what they are dealing with, so have the luxury of context. :2c:


----------



## Occam (1 Feb 2015)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I've seen a few times where problems were "well known" on the coast, and then when I got to Ottawa, the LCMM had heard rumours, but had nothing they could take for action, didn't know who was actually having the problem, and didn't know what ship(s) it was on.



I'm living that dream right now.  Some new equipment we installed during FELEX had a peculiar, visible defect that you didn't even have to have technical training to notice, but it wasn't communicated to Ottawa.  Now we're doing a $28K per ship retrofit to fix it, when it could have been fixed at much less cost had it been reported as soon as it was noticed.



> We're in a huge bureaucratic beast, but if you don't feed it and jump through the hoops, the only guarantee is that nothing will happen.  At least if you put in a UCR, and nothing happens, you can follow up on it as people are accountable to action it.
> 
> Kind of like voting; you can't complain about the politicians if you don't vote, and you can't complain about the LCMMs not doing their jobs if you don't send up the paperwork.  A lot of them are responsible for hundreds of items, so they won't necessarily even have noticed the six returns with defects unless someone raises it up.  I used to complain a lot more before I came to Ottawa and saw what they are dealing with, so have the luxury of context. :2c:



I'm the TA (Technical Authority) for 3424 NATO Stock Numbers, under 135 different active ERNs.  My days go very quickly.


----------



## Dissident (1 Feb 2015)

I've been meaning to write up some UCRs, I'll start with this problem this week. Good times.


----------



## sidemount (1 Feb 2015)

Ive done a few TFRs that have brought changes to some of our kit that have brought about changes and they are importants same as UCRs so that like was said, you feed the beast and fet some change. If you do nothing then nothing changes....paperwork sucks but its a required evil.....and most of us do paperwork everyday anyway so one more sheet isnt so bad haha


----------



## Old EO Tech (1 Feb 2015)

DRMIS TFR's are not that hard to do once you crest the small learning curve.  They can be done in either the portal or production.

And to clarify there is a difference between UCR's and TFR's.  TFR's are for when an item fails to live up to is technical specifications.  Such as the problem here with EO Tech sights.  UCR's are for when an item does meet it's technical specifications that DND asked for, but the end user finds that it fails to meet the requirements of their job...ie DND just didn't ask for what we need.  UCR's are still on the old system but will eventually move to DRMIS so I"m told.


----------



## Old EO Tech (1 Feb 2015)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Can you elaborate?



If you have not done the new TFR's see your planner or Prod O, there is a DRMIS simulation and PPT on how do them as well as an training aid pdf.  Really they are just an other type of notification, were each level in the CoC adds their comments in the text field and then adds the next level of review as a "partner".  Those people can then take action.  The normal flow would be Tech--Maint Supvisor--Planner/Prod O--ETQMS--LCMM/TA.  in the unit it will stay as a TFR, and once the LCMM gets it he changes it to a LIR, LCM Investigation Report.  It's then in his hands.  But your ETQMS can easily query for answers once the TFR is made.  And there is no longer a Unit TFR number, the DRMIS notification number becomes that and is recorded by the Planner/Prod O.

Myself as the ET 1VP, I've done one on the LAV6 and one on the C7 bayonet failures without any issues.  The technical issues might not be easy or fast to fix on the equipment....but that is no different from the old TFR system to new.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Feb 2015)

Just as a point of clarity this is straight from the pub:

The purpose of the UCR is to:

A:  identify deficiencies in materiel (e.g. faulty design or workmanship, inadequate for the intended purpose, unreliable, inadequate operational performance, difficult to operate
or maintain);

B:  identify deficiencies in policies or procedures (e.g. change in policy, poor operator or technical manuals);

C: identify potential and actual hazards to personnel, materiel and property; and

D: allow a formal means to transfer equipment (including software) knowledge and experience between user Units and the Technical Authority (TA) located in a Headquarters (HQ).


----------



## Dissident (3 Feb 2015)

Yeah, I got a UCR instruction manual/document I've been meaning to read, but any and all suggestions are welcome.


----------



## Occam (3 Feb 2015)

Being on the Navy side of the house, I'd never heard of a TFR.  Looking at the Mat KNet, it mentions this:

The Unsatisfactory Condition Reporting System (UCRS) is an ADM(Mat) web-based application sponsored by DGMSSC/DMPP 5. It provides automated tools for submitting, processing and tracking notifications related to unsatisfactory conditions.  It may be used by all members of all branches of the Canadian Armed Forces, from units in the field, to various headquarters. Access is available to anyone having DIN capability. It should not be used where other reporting methods take precedence for operational reasons or Federally and/or Provincially legislated reporting procedures exist. 

The UCRS is divided into four major areas:

Unsatisfactory Condition Reporting Module (UCR) 
Technical Failure Reporting Module(TFR)  - for Army only
Suggestion Award Module (SA) – for Army only (for submissions on Army Centrally Managed Equipment and Material) 
Material Authorization Request Module (MAR) – for Army only

The UCRS also provides quick access to Equipment and Materiel search engines, such as CGCS and EID web sites.

Each of the four major areas are described in further detail below: 

UCR: (Used by all environments) The electronic UCR captures Trouble Reporting data from Operations personnel, Qualified User Operators, Maintenance and Support Staff, specialist authorities, LCMM's and technical authorities in a structured relational database that is easily portable to other external systems and makes them visible and accountable to the Customer. 

TFR: (used by Army/Land Maintenance System (LMS) supervisors and technicians) The electronic TFR captures Trouble Reporting data from the technician directly involved with the maintenance of the equipment in a structured relational database that is easily portable to other external systems and visible to the Customer. The TFR should normally be completed by the maintenance organization that diagnoses the failure. The intent of the electronic TFR is to advise all levels of the Land Maintenance System (LMS) technical net, including the Life Cycle Material Manager (LCMM), of technical failures of materiel for which the LMS has maintenance responsibility. It may also be used by LCMM for other projects such as reporting warranty failures, monitoring major modifications or gathering support to validate a particular failure trend. It is not intended that the TFR replace the Unsatisfactory Condition Report (UCR) 

SA: (used for submissions on Centrally Managed Army/Land Equipment, Items & Material only). A suggestion is a written proposal, plan or practicable idea for improvement of the operations, safety, as well as details of policy and processes related to the in-service phase of the equipment life-cycle of any federal department or agency, that, if adopted, could result in tangible or intangible benefits

MAR: (used by Army/Land units only) The MAR is a vehicle for the army field units to request entitlement increase on given materiel. The workflow manages, and routes the MAR electronic documents from the originator to the assigned OPI and then to the MAR Coordinator, dictated by critical fields being correctly populated within the document 

There, I've learned something today.  Time for a coffee!


----------



## Old EO Tech (24 Feb 2015)

Sadly that MatKnet writeup, like so many of our still official LEMS policies is outdated and badly in need of a rewrite.  Only UCRs are still done in UCRS, TFR's are in DRMIS now, SA's are dead period...and I have not seen a MAR used since the 90's either...


----------



## MJP (24 Feb 2015)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Sadly that MatKnet writeup, like so many of our still official LEMS policies is outdated and badly in need of a rewrite.  Only UCRs are still done in UCRS, TFR's are in DRMIS now, SA's are dead period...and I have not seen a MAR used since the 90's either...



I recently saw a bunch of MARs go through the online portal.  I have to follow up ( thanks for the reminder) but they are at the LCMM level right now.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Nov 2015)

I haven't seen this posted and if it has feel free to delete

http://soldiersystems.net/2015/09/30/ussocom-issues-safety-use-message-eotech-enhanced-combat-optical-sights-plus-goings/

Seems the weapon won't hold its zero in very hot and very cold temps.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (1 Dec 2015)

I posted about it in another thread. you may have missed it. Seems they have been removed from service?


----------



## acen (1 Dec 2015)

There has even been a lawsuit where L3 paid out in the realm of 26M to settle. The days of seeing EOTech on USSOCOM rifles are done. The anecdotal side says that this wasn't an issue before L3 took over the company so earlier ones would be good to go according to some.


----------



## Lumber (1 Dec 2015)

This isn't the same holographic sight that we have on the Navy's new C8s, is it?


----------



## blacktriangle (1 Dec 2015)

I remember seeing shots of NBP guys using EOTech sights, yep.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (1 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> This isn't the sane holographic sight that we have on the Navy's new C8s, is it?



If the Navy is using the C8A3 then those have EoTech sights on them.


----------



## NavyShooter (1 Dec 2015)

We are, and yes, we do.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Dec 2015)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I posted about it in another thread. you may have missed it. Seems they have been removed from service?



Sorry about that.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (2 Dec 2015)

The MP Branch is also equipped with the C8A3.


----------



## Lumber (2 Dec 2015)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> We are, and yes, we do.



So, are they removing them from service as *Bzzliteyr* was saying? I rather liked them last time I didby C8 qual, and it was damn f***ing cold that day in Bedford with the cross wind.


----------



## acen (2 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> So, are they removing them from service as *Bzzliteyr* was saying? I rather liked them last time I didby C8 qual, and it was damn f***ing cold that day in Bedford with the cross wind.



USSOCOM is currently seeking a replacement for them. 

Sources: http://soldiersystems.net/2015/11/09/ussocom-evaulates-replacement-for-eotech-sights/
http://soldiersystems.net/2015/09/30/ussocom-issues-safety-use-message-eotech-enhanced-combat-optical-sights-plus-goings/


----------



## Bzzliteyr (2 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> So, are they removing them from service as *Bzzliteyr* was saying? I rather liked them last time I didby C8 qual, and it was damn f***ing cold that day in Bedford with the cross wind.



I think the issues isn't if they function or not in the cold but rather that they lose their zero when changing temps.


----------



## Dissident (2 Dec 2015)

Acknowledged issues:
1- Zero shifting in various temperature.

Unacknowledge issues:
1- Short battery life
2- Prism migration/unglueing
3- Can't leave batteries in
4- Sights turning off while firing
5- Sights turning off due to heat

The Eotech is a turd. It has taken way too long for big army to catch on to this. For the life of me I can't understand why I am/was having such a hard time to get through to some (often very) good people. 

Now our C8s are BUS only for now. Looks like we will be getting C79s as replacements. When I consider that an improvement, that should tell you something.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (2 Dec 2015)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Acknowledged issues:
> 1- Zero shifting in various temperature.
> 
> Unacknowledge issues:
> ...



I would question whether UCRs were put in for them. If the military doesn't know there's something wrong, they can't do anything about it.


----------



## MJP (2 Dec 2015)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> The Eotech is a turd. It has taken way too long for big army to catch on to this. For the life of me I can't understand why I am/was having such a hard time to get through to some (often very) good people.
> 
> Now our C8s are BUS only for now. Looks like we will be getting C79s as replacements. When I consider that an improvement, that should tell you something.



Cause they look cool, some more senior people carry them.  Those people don't always fire a lot of rounds combined with the fact that they still want to look cool has probably led to not much being said about performance.

I have always laughed at who carries C8s and other special kit.  Less about function for many (looking at you Infantry Bns) and more about having cool kit.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (2 Dec 2015)

MJP said:
			
		

> Cause they look cool, some more senior people carry them.  Those people don't always fire a lot of rounds combined with the fact that they still want to look cool has probably led to not much being said about performance.
> 
> I have always laughed at who carries C8s and other special kit.  Less about function for many (looking at you Infantry Bns) and more about having cool kit.



Pfft, wait till I put my M203 under it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Dec 2015)

I've seen pictures of ISIS using Elcan Spectres and ACOGs, maybe we could get a deal from their supplier.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Dec 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've seen pictures of ISIS using Elcan Spectres and ACOGs, maybe we could get a deal from their supplier.



The Iraqi Army? Never used, only dropped once.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Dec 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've seen pictures of ISIS using Elcan Spectres and ACOGs, maybe we could get a deal from their supplier.



Houthi rebels are using Timberwolfs captured from the Saudi's


----------

