Eotrash

>>64687948
Combat proven, unlike whatever trash you put on your rifle

>>64687952
An elcan and T2? You serious?

>>64687979
Post a selfie you consoomer tripfag. I want to laugh at you.

>>64687979
>elcan
peak gunsooming. elcans are cool for cloning or whatever but there are much better sights for less money. you could have gotten a nightforce scope for the price of an elcan, but nooooo elcan is the "kino vibes expensive sight" and thats why you bought it

>>64687990
I've posted my home address multiple times on this board. Come see for yourself
>>64688027
No I bought it because it's fucking awesome and it'll survive the recoil impulse of my SCAR 17.

>>64687948
>>64687952
I thought EO TECHs had failure issues breaking after use.

>>64688278
Eotechs had a thermal drift issue that came to light in 2016. They could shift as far as 4MOA from a room temp zero if exposed to the extremes of -40F or 122F degrees. Not a real issue for 99.9% of private users but a problem for a SOCOM optic. The issue has been fixed in models designed after this was found, but the gun community loves to take and hold hyperbolic stances.
Eotechs have less battery life than Aimpoints. Modern Eotechs say they have 1000 hours at setting 12, though the anecdotes commonly say it is closer to 600. That's not nothing, but it does mean you have to stay on top of it compared to Aimpoints with their five digit battery lives.
Eotechs are pretty sturdy. Obviously you can find examples of destroyed ones- stuff gets destroyed in combat, but they aren't especially fragile.
For a special operations CCO they work well with NODS and magnifiers so not the worst choice as long as you stay on top of the battery situation, which I'm sure SOCOM thinks they can manage

>>64688337
Well wasn't there also an issue with delamination a few years back? I haven't heard anything since so it may be like the AUGsplosions and a result of coof-era quality