Tactical Tailor

USSOCOM Replaces EOTech Sights With EOTech Sights

Naval Surface Warfare Center – Crane Division, acting as the program office for special operations weapons procurement on behalf of United States Special Operations Command has announced a $23,637,320 contract to L-3 Communications EOTech for Close Quarters Battle Sights. We do not yet have verification of which model was selected.

As you may recall, in September, 2015, we broke the story of severe issues with EOTech Holographic Weapon Sights. Ultimately, many (but not all) units within USSOCOM withdrew the sights from service and the US Department of Justice charged L-3 Communications with fraud. L-3 settled for over $25 million. This led to a massive commercial refund program by EOTech, taking back virtually any EOTech sight identified by customers.

SOF units tested and fielded various interim replacements and USSOCOM undertook a formal program to identify a replacement as part of their Miniature Aiming System – Day suite of optics. This contract award is a result of that effort.

Internally, EOTech cleaned house, fixed their production issues, and introduced the VUDU line of telescopic sight. It’s a testament to the dedication of EOTech that they were able to turn themselves in three years and win the business back. I’m impressed.

Tags: ,

44 Responses to “USSOCOM Replaces EOTech Sights With EOTech Sights”

  1. Max Chen says:

    lmao Eotech haters on suicide watch

  2. Rob says:

    FWIW, a local Minnesota PD (talk about temoprature swing) pulled off their EOTechs immediately after the original story broke. After they tested Aimpoint and a couple other sights, the EOTechs went right back onto the rifles.

  3. Geoff says:

    But the internet says Eotech sucks! Someone should tell Crane.

    • JM Gavin says:

      Because DoD always buys the very best piece of equipment they can, regardless of price, right?

      • Anibal Perez says:

        Well this is the Spec Ops community, so likely it IS the best tool for the job and not the lowest bidder

        • JM Gavin says:

          That sounds nice, but doesn’t reflect reality. Acquisitions for Program of Record items are pretty much standardized across DoD. During my 22 years as an 18-series soldier, I sometimes got issued the best, and sometimes not. Generally when I was issued the best, it wasn’t a Program of Record purchase item (for example, the Glock 19 and the ELCAN).

          I used the EOTech, because I preferred it over the M68 and the ACOG. Once the ELCAN became available, most of us ditched the EOTechs for the ELCAN. The EOTech has a short battery life, and is prone to power issues. The ELCAN doesn’t have those issues, but ELCANs are far more expensive than EOTechs.

        • Mac679 says:

          Like the Gregory rucksack they bought that weight 15lbs empty?

      • Steven says:

        I have TWO uncles that just recently retired from the Army, both spent their lives in Special Forces. One was 180A, 18C & 18F, his team’s Chief Warrant officer. I still don’t know anything about my other uncle’s history in SF. Whatever it was, it’s left him as one of the few Special Operations guys that CAN’T write books, start YouTube channels, and get treated like Rock stars, like so many seem to do today.

        Neither one have any financial interest to gain by using EOTECH still, but that’s what they both have on their own personal weapons at home now.

        And considering they both started their service in the early 80s, they were there before EOTECH, using AIMPOINT, and any other red dots the military used before EOTECH.

      • Joglee says:

        These are the guys doing everything right with small arms right now. From the URGI to 6.5 SDMs.

        I have faith in them ATM.

  4. Easy E says:

    A company can make a good product and also lie, as they’re not mutually exclusive. In my opinion, the issue with EOTech was that there appeared to be evidence that they were aware of an issue with their sights that meant they were aware that some of their claims were untrue. Did these technical issues matter to the average civilian consumer? I doubt it — but what appears to be a case of a corporation lying to them (and government agencies) is an issue. I don’t know how much real-world problems their issue produced, but complaints against them were warranted.

    For CQB, EOTechs had long been my favorite. However, I’m not quite ready to spend my money on one of their products. I’ll give it some time, s I don’t believe they’re to be forever ignored, but I’m not going to ignore what was the greater issue to me — the apparent lying.

  5. Steve says:

    When the problems were reported, I carefully inspected and tested the bejeepers out of my EOTech RDS.
    It worked perfectly under every extreme I forced upon it. It held tight to specs.
    I kept mine.
    To my eye and for my uses, the EOTech sight has many advantages over the competing models.

  6. Mic says:

    Fool me once, shame on you.
    I am sorry. But there is no way we should trust this company to take our boys down range. I know it is not my call, but I will never trust them. From what I read they lied their asses off. I know my opinion doesn’t matter in the end. Not Cool bro

    • Joe says:

      Hate to break it to you but most of soldiers opted to keep eotech on their service rifles due to the fact that the conditions in which would cause the thermal drift would more then likely never be seen and that all red dot sights would have the same issue when being in that extreme weather conditions

    • Burdy says:

      Could you please inform us all what optic you are running now that happens to have zero thermal drift?

      • Easy E says:

        Mic didn’t claim that he’s aware of an optic that has zero thermal drift, his complaint seems to be that the company was lying which seems supported by evidence concerning this debacle. Is it unreasonable to not want to trust a company that has shown itself to knowingly lie? I don’t believe so.

    • Paul says:

      What model did this refer to?

  7. FMJ Virus says:

    Personally I like and depend on my EXPS 2. I purchased it a couple of years before the whole debacle happened and back then we didn’t have many options for high quality “red dots” but would I buy another EOTech…… Na. compared to all the quality options we have today the EOTech is overpriced, overweight and a battery hog.

    • Larry says:

      I got rid of my EXPS 3 back in the great Eotech recall.

      I experienced the the thermal drift going from cold weather to hot a few months later, and at 100m I was 6 inches to the left.

      I also had the gas leak problem. And finally I had this issue where it would shut off when firing, just a few times. Thought it was the battery but found out I had to pull the battery and put it back in to get it to come on again.

      So I sent it in and got the full refund. I bought a Comp M4s. The M4s if a bomb proof red dot. I have not changed the battery yet, 3 years later.

      That said, when it worked, I liked the Eotech way better. It is 100x easier to pickup the dot, especially on a bright day. Using it for CQB it is…put the stop sign sized outer circle on the torso and squeeze the trigger easy. Want to go out to 200m on a 8 inch steel target use only the 1MOA dot. Need more range get their great magnifier.

      I am not going back anytime soon but I have heard/read that most of the problems are fixed. I will wait and see.

  8. SamHill says:

    @Burdy have people already forgotten about iron sights or traditional magnified optics? Assuming that you are suggesting that all or most electronic optics have this thermal drift issue, that most Americans would likely never experience.
    I have one ACOG, one Trijicon MRO and one with Troy iron sights. No thermal drift yet. =-)

    • Mathunimus says:

      Since I’m limited due to being “farsighted”, iron sights won’t work and a holographic is very well suited to correct that issue. They’re much better at helping you threat focus while simultaneously giving very accurate shot placement recognition, especially shooting/engaging multiple threats/targets under stress. Lastly, night-vision. With an EXPS 3, you have the ability to run night-vision with it’s ability to turn the brightness level down to accommodate beyond what any traditional magnified optic or iron sights can. Now, what’s all that worth? EOTech’s, if you’ve put time in with one mounted, you know their worth every penny. Hopefully our market system starts producing more viable competition from other manufacturers soon. Leupold, Aimpoint??

    • Joe_momma says:

      Try using the replay button under the comment you Want to reply too. This isn’t Facebook or ig where @ tags the Person

      • SamHill says:

        @Joe_momma it was just a simple error. I don’t have Facebook or ig on any of my devices, not intentionally, anyway. Although a text reply from the weed care guy the other day said he “liked” my text so I suspect something is afoul there…

    • Burdy says:

      Trijicon announced thermal drift in the MRO. IIRC they stated an average of 1.2 MOA under similar conditions. Average, where as EOTech states the maximum. And yes, every optic in the world has it unless you believe your preferred optic is made of unobtanium immune to the laws of expansion and contraction under temperature changes. Your BARREL has themselves drift sir, so yes, your optic dang well has it too.

  9. Wulfmann says:

    I have tried every CQ site and for me Eotechs are much faster/better. A corporation lied? Say it ain’t so. To me a weapon site is about what is best for me and they stepped up and made things right. Yeah it was because they got caught, boo hoo.. So I am suppose to use an inferior product because big corpo lied? really??? I have XPS2s on 5 AR15s. I don’t want/need to QD so my primaries all have them on tight. Sorry but to me this is about what is best for me not some lame on no how could they standard. want me to switch offer something that works better and BTW when I have had a problem L3 takes care of it NC

  10. Joe_momma says:

    I’m just here for the strict divide between the “works for me” and the “a cold front came through and i almost died”

  11. BS says:

    I thought it will be Leupold or Aimpoint. Feeling suprised.

  12. Keith small says:

    I’ve used EOTech for many years and still do to this day. I had one problem with a 512 “the first one I bought “ and I contacted them and they sent me a box to ship it in and I got it back quick. Had it for years before I had any problem at all and they still fixed it. A seal went bad and let the nitrogen gas escape. Got it back , I called them they told me what the problem was and said I shouldn’t have any more problems with it. I now have a few of the EXPS2-2 and wouldn’t trade them for any other. I do also have a Vortex Sparc which I got for free with a purchase of another Daniel Defense rifle and so far it seems to be a pretty good red dot. Not an EOTech though.

  13. Ken Rull says:

    USSOCOM just realized that even years later, after a thermal drift scandal, less-than-aimpoint-level reliability…that STILL nothing else does what the EOTechs do, as well as they do it (CQB performance and passive aiming under NODs).

    Now that L3 (who has an impeccable reputation supplying the best NV tubes for USSOCOM) has taken over, cleaned things up and is offering 10 year warranties on all commercial EOTech holosights from 2017 and newer (terms are no doubt even better for Mil), they became a viable option again. Still, like with pistol RDS, you should be sure to have an extra EOTech holosight and good BUIS ready to go as reliability is still not at Aimpoint levels.

    That nobody has beaten EOTech at their own game after all this time shows how hard it is to build a good combat holosight (can somebody step up PLEASE). USSOCOM jumping back on the wagon shows that holosights continue to have undeniable advantages in specific use cases.

  14. ILya Koshkin says:

    The only other Holosight on the market is Vortex’ UH-1. I like holographic sights, so I have a UH-1 and I have a lot of mileage with the various EOTechs. I like both, but slightly prefer the UH-1. I wonder if Crane looked at it as well. There are a couple of reasons why for a lot of military applications, holographic sights have a little bit of an advantage. Easy compatibility with various night vision gear is one. Zero or minimal forward signature is the other. The disadvantage, of course, is battery life. On my reflex sights like the Shield SIS, I usually replace batteries once a year for piece of mind and I don’t even bother to turn them off. With holographic sights, I have to pay attention to the battery quite a bit more.

  15. Alpha2 says:

    As someone that has a myopic astigmatism my choice for RDS is very limited. Aimpoints, MRO’s and others look like comets sprouting at 1300. EoTech HWS however look perfect to me, some with similar eye issues complain they look worse, but for me I see a perfectly round dot and ring…for that reason, and working for a department that allows flexibility on your optics on department weapons EOTech has been the only optic I have used for CQB. Not a fan of the fraud, but as of now it is one of the, if not only optic that I can use without issues.

  16. Will M says:

    Long as they actually fixed the issues, no problem. Thermal drift was not the only problem. After time, all of the XPS series sights just plain stopped working. Reticle would get fuzzy and then die. Battery Compartment issues were noted, especially in the larger sight where you change the batteries and immediately lose the rubber terminal which comes off.

  17. Darkhorse says:

    Glad to see EOTech back in the game! As someone who used the original Bushnell, then evaluated the first run of EOTech holosights, I was NEVER in a situation where there was a performance issue with the sights. I can’t say that any of my teammates ever had an issue with theirs, either.

    I used it on 5 deployments in a myriad of conditions, NEVER had a single issue.

Leave a Reply