Well that escalated! Hot on the heels of the U.S. Government suing EOTech for the alleged fraud in their sights, specifically in claiming that their sights could work in certain cold weather and humid environments, then trying to cover up this error in an upgrade, the parent company of EOTech, L-3 Communications, based out of New York has agreed to a payout of $25.6 million to the Government. We literally just reported on the lawsuit going through the the courts, and then this agreement has come up. It could be the end of the matter, or this could drag on with both sides negotiating some more. Along with the FBI’s HRT team switching over to Aimpoint sights, things don’t seem to be looking hot for EOTech right now on the federal government front. If you’re interested in reading the full court reading of the case, Soldier Systems has a good write up of the legal discussions.
However:
What will that mean for civilian or LE EOTech users? The problems are being found in extreme weather circumstances, so if you use your EOTech sights for range use, self defense, and hunting, unless your house is in the Arctic circle, or the jungles of Philippines, I don’t see your sights failing anytime soon. Regardless, maybe the responsible thing for EOTech to do, is to publish lists of serial numbers of their sights with the defect so customers can just be aware of what they have.
Political Correctness is the language of lies, written by the corrupt , spoken by the inept!
Love my 512, works fine in our climate. It's an old model which I had to send back to L3 as it had lost it's nitrogen purge, they upgraded to a new chassis free of charge.
I can understand why EOTech would have to pay a lawsuit to the US Government, as they most likely accepted that their device was compliant with all of the requirements necessary for the device. However, I think civilian's should have the option for a full refund or not. Although the devices may not operate in extreme weather conditions despite EOTech saying they did, are there any other features that do not work as advertised? I think that civilian owners should be given the choice for either an upgrade to a version which does what is says on the tin or should be given a refund for the device they have.
