USSOCOM Evaulates Replacement For EOTech Sights

According to sources close to the effort, USSOCOM will evaluate five alternative optics as a replacement for the L3 Communications EOTech Enhanced Combat Optical Sights which have been the subject of a series of Safety of Use Messages issued by PM SOF Weapons at Crane NSWC.  

The candidate sights include the Aimpoint’s T2, Leupold’s LCO and Delta Point PRO as well as Trijicon’s MRO and SRS.  Based on an operational need by a SOF component, one, or possible more sights will be selected for limited fielding after an evaluation by users.  The list of candidate optics offers a variety of capabilities rather than a bunch of clones.  If anything, the evaluation will give some exposure to different technologies and help refine future requirements and we understand a more extensive, open solicitation, may be issued later to field optics across the entire command.  

52 Responses to “USSOCOM Evaulates Replacement For EOTech Sights”

  1. james says:

    It will be nice to see what they say about the MRO. If it holds up well( all indications are it will) the current price makes it a no brainer.

  2. Echo says:

    James, I tested the MRO recently and just for me it’s a no go. I had a terrible double image happen when shooting with both eyes open. I tried various positions on the rail with some mitigating it a bit but it never completely went away. One eye shooting it was fine. I felt there was a bit of magnification that seemed to be causing me issues. Another team mate had the same experience. I will be interested in what real deal shooters decide on.

    • TCBA_Joe says:

      I was excited when the MRO came out, then I found out it has the lens tint issues and slight magnification “bubble” effect similar to the SRS.

      I haven’t looked through the MRO personally, so I’m holding out judgement. But sight unseen I’ll be buying more T1s.

    • james says:

      They do have a bit of “fish-eye” near the edge, so you may be right about there being something going on that mimics a magnified optic. That could be why moving it on the rail(like adjusting the focal length) made a little difference.The first I have heard about any kind of image doubling though,thanks for sharing the experience you guys had with it.

      Of course for me, even aimpoints have misshapen dots.Guess I just always expect little pecularities with red dots due to my eyes.

      • echo says:

        Fish-eye is a better way of putting it than doubling that I said. I didn’t have the MRO long but every time I shot the fish-eye effect was very distracting. For most the MRO would be a fine optic I think, especially guys who hunt and are not two eye shooters. I did like its field of view and it seems like a robust piece.

    • Drakiir says:

      Agreed Echo, un-magnified I don’t have any issues with the MRO but magnified the optics are just atrocious. I’ll continue to use my EOtech as my region doesn’t suffer any of the extreme weather conditions that seem to be effecting the zero.

      As for the MRO I’ll throw it on the DP-12 when I get around to buying it and it’ll be my always on home defense option.

  3. JS says:


  4. Aimpoint T2…the dot is crisper and more defined than the T1, particularly under magnification.

    Go with Aimpoint and call it a day.

    Our guys deserve the best and I’m glad they are finally moving away from EOTECH.

  5. Rugrash says:

    Death knell for L3.

  6. DangerMouse says:

    Aimpoint seems to be obvious leader, but I’ve always wondered, how is Aimpoint Barry compliant?

    • They aren’t – but that hasn’t kept the US Military from fielding thousands upon thousands of them

      • BrettW says:

        Berry has nothing to do with technologies, it applies to textiles.

        • Phil says:

          Berry actually applies to a host of things including what a soldier wears and eats but it doesn’t not apply to weapons’ systems or sights.

      • Larry says:

        Ummm yeah the Comp M4/M4s is (or I thought) standard Army issue. So I would say it meets whatever criteria it needs to meet.

        Speaking of which, why don’t they just switch to the Comp M4/M4s since it is already approved? It is one tough sight.

        Or is this just another example government experiment in spending money for the heck of it?

    • So this is Obama’s fault? 😉

  7. Roy says:

    Perhaps I have missed this somewhere else, but could Mr. Vickers comment on why the EO Tech was selected in the first place?

  8. Vince says:

    I’m sorry. I can’t take the admin’s choice of photos seriously. Especially when the hardass in the pic is rocking a rifle with no mag in it. On another note, the disappointments with the Eotech brand are long standing. If only they had zipped up their HWS a little more tight or at least made the necessary revisions to guarantee a dependable and high performing product, this all could have been avoided. Instead, they wanted to play to the gamer crowd and market biohazard reticles and zombie slaying holographic merc machines. Real tools for real warfighters. That is what you should be in business for.

  9. Kaos-1 says:

    SOCOM’s block II reflex sight is/was the su-231/peq which is the eotech 553. Does this mean that all eotech’s are crap, or is this civilian hysteria that if its not good enough for the war fighter, it’s not good enough for me ? My 552 has lasted me 12 years and still going strong . Bought it before L3 acquired eotech. It’s been on 3 deployments to Iraq, on M-4’s , even used it on a SAW a few times,it’s been beat to shit, even had a battery corrode in it once. Now it deals with Iowa winters on the farm popping coyotes out to about 200 yards . And Iowa winters are pretty damn close to “extreme temperatures”. And like I said , works just fine.

    • Fox says:

      I have the luxury of enduring Iowa winters as well as a citizen, as well as in a LEO capacity. Our patrol rifles are equipped with EOTECH. My personal rifle, which also accompanies my at work, is equipped with a 512 and I have had it for years with zero issues. What I think needs to be remembered is that it’s the totality of circumstances when it comes to optic selection. Some may be forced to use whatever optic they are issued. Others may not be able to get with the hefty price tag that comes with other brands. And finally, what is the optic being used for? In a civilian capacity for plinking, hunting or the hopefully once in a lifetime home defense situation? Or in the defense of people, law and freedom in a LEO or MIL capacity? During my USMC active duty days, it was always irons, and optics were a luxury that came later. Then it was “here you go…use it.”

  10. Darkhorse says:

    I had one of the original Holosights made by Bushnell prior to EOTech’s being an option. Like any piece of gear, one should know the capabilities AND limitations and plan/train accordingly. The Holosight and EOTech have served MANY people very well over the years, myself included. And as compared with AimPoint (at that time) the Holosight was a much better selection.

    Like any company that’s had to meet the demand of making MILLIONS of something, I’m sure quality has slipped and there are legitimate issues, concerns, and problems.

    But don’t turn this into a Holosight bashing thread, especially if you weren’t ever issued one. They’ve served the community well for the better part of the GWOT.

    • Your a little bit delusional on how well they have served – ‘made do’ is a better way to look at it. They have had problems for a very very long time – it’s just now out in the open for all to see.

      • Darkhorse says:

        This from a guy who pimps AimPoint.. Not delusional at all considering everyone I deployed with (myself included) for years was using them and slaying bad guys with virtually zero complaints or issues. I think it’s in poor taste when you’re sponsored (or you promote a specific brand) to run down another company’s equipment. You’ve seen a lot more variety in red dot sights since separating from the service by way of your classes and courses you run. I respect your opinion on the matter but I’m calling out how well the EOTech has served, at least in it’s earlier years. Don’t take that away from them and turn this into an AimPoint commercial.

        • Matt says:

          It doesn’t matter how well “they served.” All that matters is how they serve right now.

          And that is not very well.

          • Darkhorse says:

            With any piece of equipment, there are shortfalls, limitations, and compromises. It’s why there are back up iron sights on your weapon, technology fails at times. Do you know what the threshold and objectives were in regards to fielding this particular piece of equipment? Do you know the track record it had within tier one units prior to being issued to the masses? Track record is a very important part of any fielding of new equipment and I’m here to tell you that the AimPoint’s of THAT time had issues with parallax, had inconsistent size and shape of the red dots, and had issues staying seated on the weapon and maybe they still do. But if we paid no attention to track record, we wouldn’t know what issues to look for.

            I agree with you in that today’s performance is what really matters, but at the same time, past performance is a big part of any program. AimPoint has never been the be all end all solution nor are any of the other candidates. They all have their pros and cons and unless you look to past performance, you don’t know what to look for as a potential deficiency in the future.

            The real failure here isn’t the equipment. It’s the system that allowed the faulty equipment to continue to be fielded to deploying troops. There are too many items to list here that have had a lot acceptance failure, or have fallen short of the mark at some point in their mass production (Hk 416 cracking issues/ballistic plate LAT failures etc). Had corrective action happened at the time the deficiency was identified (as in the aforementioned items) this post probably wouldn’t exist and most likely at the end user level, you’d likely only know that you’re still waiting on your optic to deliver rather than knowing there was a deficiency being corrected.

        • I call it like I see it and I have seen more problems with Eotech’s than any other major brand of Red Dot Sights; I’m not alone – the flaws are finally coming to light for everyone to see. It’s great that yours worked well for you but countless others have had ALOT of problems with them- the fact they are going to be replaced says it all.

  11. Carlos says:

    IMHO, if they were smart they would just field all of them and let the individual Operators or units decide which one they are most effective with.

    • Jon, OPT says:

      Based on my 9.5 years on SFODAs I will say this would not work, I’ve seen some trash come through team room doors. Guys walking in with Condor gear, horrible optics, guys thinking Gen 2 civilian NODS would be better than issued current gens.

      Once sifting through the trash, putting all quality systems on the table, then allocating funds to units, getting approval after unit level testing and vetting, and then keeping your fingers crossed that budgets get approved, higher agreeing to numbers, etc etc…once all that is done, your new guys from the beginning of the process are now veterans, and have decided something different works better… lather, rinse, repeat.

      I went through this with authorized purchases of civilian optics and shooting accessories while on a CIF SFODA. The current process may suck, but the alternative is far fucking worse. That’s why the SOPMOD Blocks had multiple optics, you choose based on mission, gear is already tested and approved… in the case of EOTechs, apparently not tested enough. Shit happens.

      I just bought and used my own optic after OIF, based on feedback on the T1. My life is worth the $1k I layed down for that, and any other aftermarket shit.

      Your idea isn’t bad, it’s just that government money doesn’t move at the speed that it should. With SMUs maybe, but not with force sizes like RGR RGT or 1st SF RGT (that’s all green beret units).

      • Carlos says:

        I guess I should clarify what I mean by fielding “all of them”. I meant the ones that pass the necessary muster in terms of quality, utility and whatever standards that the community agrees to.

        I did not mean all that is available on the market. You’d have people showing up with Airsoft crap that would endanger the Team.

        • Jon, OPT says:

          Even with that, the same issues exist. The system needs improvement, your idea is solid, I’m just stating why it won’t work given current conditions (unless things have changed). The testing and vetting process is an 8 shop function, currently the G8 shops at varying levels are improving, even as effective as they are that doesn’t change how money gets put forth. It’s the nature of the beast.

          Missions will still be accomplished. In my experience like with anything, take the 80-90% solution for the force, compensate for the remaining 10-20% using training, and field craft user level mods or upgrades.

          Looking back at the last 15 years, the slow trickle of change works, it’s just extraordinarily slow.

  12. Alex says:

    I will take one for the team here. If anyone wants to send me their “crappy” eotechs I will take them off your hands. If you think they are junk I would do you that service. You’re welcome.

  13. James says:

    It’s shame they aren’t opening up these trails to other military proven brands with products that have previously beaten some of these manufacturers in military trials with products like the Shield CQS and SIS. After all I assume USSOCOM are looking for what the most up to date technology is in red dots and to find the best product for the users. Maybe a larger pool of products should be tested in order to determine this, what do you think??

  14. Jimbo says:

    I have used EOTechs in combat and training almost exclusively since 04. There were two tours where I would switch with the Elcan depending on missions. I first started using EOTech magnifiers in 2010. Like just about anything electronic, some have had issues. Like Kaos, I still use one, both home and work.

    I also have a T1 on a home gun that I’ve used for two years. I really like it. I recently got a T2 and have only shot once with it but it seems pretty much the same as the -1 from a shooting POV. I used an Aimpoint through the late 90s and during my 03 trip. I’ve always liked their dependability.

  15. Chris U'5 says:

    So if the EO Tech is binned what happens to them all?? Serious question…there must be thousands (?) of them in use currently, are they just written off, sold or maybe given to friendly forces?

    • Evil Nadman says:

      Will probably be given to friendly forces through out the world. They are already bought and paid for. Why would they just throw away or destroy something that can still be used?

      • John says:

        Lol, this is the govt we are talking about here. They destroy BILLIONS of dollars worth of surplus and even NEW IN WRAPPER/BOX stuff just to save the hassle and costs of inventorying, shipping and DRMOing it.

    • bloke_from_ohio says:

      That is theoretically what DRMO is for.