Holosun AEMS vs HE509T vs HS510C for Carbine

[strow]

I am currently running an older HE503 GU on a 12.5” AR and looking at upgrading.

Which would you pick for carbine work from 80y and in with an emphasis on speed?

How noticeable is the increase window size of the AEMS over the HE509T?

Would the HE509T 32moa circle be a hinderance on a carbine vs the 65moa on the AEMS?

How would the HS510C compare to the others on a carbine for speed of acquisition?

Does any of these tend to have better glass or reticle clarity than the others?

If you had to pick one for an AR carbine or PCC which, would you pick and why?

[ssb]

The 509T has a fair amount of parallax and distortion, so much so that it would not be my choice for carbine use. The AEMS is what I’d go with.

[JCN]

strow don’t forget about the 512 as an enclosed version of the 510 too.

The 509 is too small.

I like the lower mount of the 510/512 over the AEMS, but the AEMS is a fine choice too.

It’s a common choice for USPSA PCC.


https://youtu.be/Oom4Oon206k

[stomridertx]

I am currently running an older HE503 GU on a 12.5” AR and looking at upgrading.

Which would you pick for carbine work from 80y and in with an emphasis on speed?

How noticeable is the increase window size of the AEMS over the HE509T?

Would the HE509T 32moa circle be a hinderance on a carbine vs the 65moa on the AEMS?

How would the HS510C compare to the others on a carbine for speed of acquisition?

Does any of these tend to have better glass or reticle clarity than the others?

If you had to pick one for an AR carbine or PCC which, would you pick and why?

I think the AEMS is very innovative and makes a lot of sense, but I haven't had the chance to get one. On your HS503GU, I think that was one of Holosun's best optics and they should never have discontinued it. The killer feature of the HS503GU is that the height between the mounting interface and the glass is the exact same as the Aimpoint T1/T2, which makes mount selection very easy. It has protected turrets and a very low profile and easy to use battery compartment. I run it on my home defense carbine on a GDI mount and it's been great for many years now. If you ever decide to sell it, please PM me first. If the timing is right I'd buy it for a backup as they are hard to come by now.

[GJM]

510/512 feels like a good USPSA PCC optic and the AEMS feels like Holosun's answer to an Eotech EXPS.

[TicTacticalTimmy]

AEMS 100%. It has the best glass.

[strow]

Thank you for the replies!

Besides the cost is there anything the 512 does better than the AEMS? I know the 512 is absolute vs AEMS 1/3 co-witness.

The 503 has been a good optic and the reason I'm looking at the Holosun's again.

[JCN]

Thank you for the replies!

Besides the cost is there anything the 512 does better than the AEMS? I know the 512 is absolute vs AEMS 1/3 co-witness.

The 503 has been a good optic and the reason I'm looking at the Holosun's again.

I like the shape and slightly larger window of the 512.

Holosun sells a $45 low AEMS mount.

I don’t want a high mount and the extra weight doesn’t bother me so I’m happy with the 512. I’ve seen them as low as $300 on close out.

[HCM]

AEMS 100%. It has the best glass.

But it also had done weird emitter reflections in certain lighting conditions which have not been observed in the 510/512.

[HCM]

I like the shape and slightly larger window of the 512.

Holosun sells a $45 low AEMS mount.

I don’t want a high mount and the extra weight doesn’t bother me so I’m happy with the 512. I’ve seen them as low as $300 on close out.

The new version is $500 ish so get them while you can.

[DaBigBR]

I dig the AEMS series and prefer the "Core" version since the solar panel, lens covers, and multiple reticle system just do not seem necessary or justifying the price difference to me.

The 509T and really any small optic like that (to include the RMR) seem to tend to have parallax issues when used on a rifle at distance. You're asking that little piece of glass to do a lot and I think that putting an optic intended for a pistol on a rifle is kind of like putting an old X300U with its lower candela on a rifle...it will probably be fine, but it's going to hold you back when there are much better purpose-built options.

[GJM]

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/aems-holosuns-red-dot-review/

[msstate56]

Those that have an AEMS, what aftermarket mounts have you tried? For Aimpoints and LPVOs I’ve found that a 1.7” height is my preference.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Those that have an AEMS, what aftermarket mounts have you tried? For Aimpoints and LPVOs I’ve found that a 1.7” height is my preference.

When I put it on my 590, I used the Holosun low mount to secure it on a bbl mounted section of pic rail.

[Clusterfrack]

Those that have an AEMS, what aftermarket mounts have you tried? For Aimpoints and LPVOs I’ve found that a 1.7” height is my preference.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230201/f3c0c00e55a42250f5c6eab404fc8004.jpg
I just swapped a MRO for an AEMS Core because of parallax issues. I am using the lower 1/3 ~1.6x" mount it came with. I'm very happy with that height--especially given the generous window. It's still high enough to do passive aiming through a PVS-14--although not as easy for that role as a 1.93 or 2.33". Reptilia and ADM have high mounts. However, unlike mounts for other optics by Unity (https://www.unitytactical.com/product/fast-micro-mount/), Scalarworks, and the relatively economical MI (https://www.primaryarms.com/midwest-industries-aimpoint-t1-t2-mount-night-vision-height), these high mounts do not have holes for aiming through BUIS.

Reptilia 1.93"
https://reptiliacorp.com/product/dot-mount-for-holosun-aems-1-93-height/

ADM 1.93" and 2.33"
https://www.admmfg.com/aems-mount
https://www.admmfg.com/images/thumbs/0002212_holosun-aems-mount.jpeg

[msstate56]

Thanks! I’ve looked at the Reptilia. I have one of their 1.93” for Aimpoint Micros and like it. I would have to get offset BUIS if I go that high. I’ve got an AEMS on the way, and will give the factory mount a go first, then see if I want it higher.

[msstate56]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230201/f3c0c00e55a42250f5c6eab404fc8004.jpg
I just swapped a MRO for an AEMS Core because of parallax issues. I am using the lower 1/3 ~1.6x" mount it came with. I'm very happy with that height--especially given the generous window. It's still high enough to do passive aiming through a PVS-14--although not as easy for that role as a 1.93 or 2.33". Reptilia and ADM have high mounts. However, unlike mounts for other optics by Unity (https://www.unitytactical.com/product/fast-micro-mount/), Scalarworks, and the relatively economical MI (https://www.primaryarms.com/midwest-industries-aimpoint-t1-t2-mount-night-vision-height), these high mounts do not have holes for aiming through BUIS.[/IMG]

Speaking of parallax, I got rid of the MRO for the same reason. Is there any appreciable parallax with the AEMS?

[Clusterfrack]

Speaking of parallax, I got rid of the MRO for the same reason. Is there any appreciable parallax with the AEMS?
Cdub_NW ran a test, comparing them. AEMS was low parallax.

I like the MRO, and have used it on very challenging targets. But the dot was centered most of the time. At night, there’s no way to tell where the dot is in the window.

[LittleLebowski]

But it also had done weird emitter reflections in certain lighting conditions which have not been observed in the 510/512.

Mine works great. It's on my Rattler.

[GJM]

I ordered a Reptilla for the AEMS, but they recalled them because if a design error on hole spacing. I have two ADM 1.93 mounts and they work great.

[Clusterfrack]

I ordered a Reptilla for the AEMS, but they recalled them because if a design error on hole spacing. I have two ADM 1.93 mounts and they work great.

Good to know. Are you not using BUIS?

[msstate56]

I ordered a Reptilla for the AEMS, but they recalled them because if a design error on hole spacing. I have two ADM 1.93 mounts and they work great.

Any idea what height ADM's "lower 1/3" AEMS mount is?

[rawkguitarist]

I just ordered a 510c in red. My wife’s AR has a shitty old Bushnell T1 attempt because at the time it was the only inexpensive alternate. So I’m trying out the 510 and putting my T1 on hers.

Seems like many have gone back to the EoTech from the T1/2 type. Apparently for the larger field of view. But the 510 seems to be better in almost every way/feature.

How are 510 owners digging them?

[Clusterfrack]

I just ordered a 510c in red. My wife’s AR has a shitty old Bushnell T1 attempt because at the time it was the only inexpensive alternate. So I’m trying out the 510 and putting my T1 on hers.

Seems like many have gone back to the EoTech from the T1/2 type. Apparently for the larger field of view. But the 510 seems to be better in almost every way/feature.

How are 510 owners digging them?

Here are some ways the 510 is not better than an EOTech:

510 is an open-emitter prism sight. I wouldn't use an open-emitter optic for a serious use carbine.

EoTech is a holographic optic, and the center dot remains a constant size when a magnifier is used.

EoTech has very low parallax, due to sophisticated and expensive optics. I don't know how much parallax a 510 has, but guessing significantly more.

EoTech is almost certainly more durable, and has a much longer track record of real-world use.

[breakingtime91]

I bought an aems from scalarworks with their 1.93 mount. It is a very lightweight, has a bigger window than a traditional micro size optic, and the dot is very crisp. I am also really impressed by the glass quality, next to an h1, the AEMS looks better.. I really like the solar feature, I have had a battery die on the range and I didn't even notice, it was a sunny day and the optic never dimmed, crazy stuff (come on aimpoint, lets goooo).


If it proves durable and reliable, I will be recommending them.

[rawkguitarist]

Here are some ways the 510 is not better than an EOTech:

510 is an open-emitter prism sight. I wouldn't use an open-emitter optic for a serious use carbine.

EoTech is a holographic optic, and the center dot remains a constant size when a magnifier is used.

EoTech has very low parallax, due to sophisticated and expensive optics. I don't know how much parallax a 510 has, but guessing significantly more.

EoTech is almost certainly more durable, and has a much longer track record of real-world use.

Yes, the open emitter is a negative. But one major reason alone toward the holosun is the EoTech's terrible battery life. And then you have to turn it on due to auto shut off. I've never had to do that due to having Holosun's on my pistols and the T1 on main rifle for 8 years. I could see forgetting to turn it on when it mattered. Naturally no optics are infallible. But Holsoun's have proved pretty damn reliable.

If I kicked in doors I'd probably always use a T1/2 and would only run a Surefire WML. But my SBR's role is a home defense firearm. If I don't have any issues with some decent range time with the 510 I'm sure it'll fit its mission along with my Inforce WML.

[HCM]

Here are some ways the 510 is not better than an EOTech:

510 is an open-emitter prism sight. I wouldn't use an open-emitter optic for a serious use carbine.

EoTech is a holographic optic, and the center dot remains a constant size when a magnifier is used.

EoTech has very low parallax, due to sophisticated and expensive optics. I don't know how much parallax a 510 has, but guessing significantly more.

EoTech is almost certainly more durable, and has a much longer track record of real-world use.

Newer EoTech’s have low parallax.

[SteveL]

I have a 510 on my Scorpion SBR. It's a fun gun not meant for serious use and the optic has seen limited use so far, but I like it. It has a good field of view and good glass IMO. I added the factory spacer to raise it up to lower 1/3 cowitness height, which was an improvement. I also have an AEMS on a Reptilia mount on a 16" AR and a HE515CT-RD in a Geissele mount on an 11.5" AR SBR. I like all of them, but I would have to say the AEMS is my favorite, and I suspect that it and the HE515CT-RD are probably the most durable, although I have no proof to back this up.

[DMF13]

Here are some ways the 510 is not better than an EOTech:

510 is an open-emitter prism sight. I wouldn't use an open-emitter optic for a serious use carbine.

EoTech is a holographic optic, and the center dot remains a constant size when a magnifier is used.

EoTech has very low parallax, due to sophisticated and expensive optics. I don't know how much parallax a 510 has, but guessing significantly more.

EoTech is almost certainly more durable, and has a much longer track record of real-world use.I agree with all of this, and wouldn't want anything other than the EOTech on my work rifle.

However, the work gun doesn't need to be always on, ready for use at a moments notice. So the short battery life isn't a problem, and its very unlikely the autopsy it off will be a problem.

Different story for the home defense gun, that has to be always on, and ready to go. On that, I currently use a SIG XDR, which also has the circle/dot reticle. However, I am considering switching to the 510 or 512, to get the larger field of view, the long battery life, and the circle/dot reticle. Those three options XDR, 510, & 512, aren't quite as good as the EOTech in many ways, but for being always on, ready at a moments notice, with the circle/dot reticle they are a better choice, IMO.

[DMF13]

Which would you pick for carbine work from 80y and in with an emphasis on speed?

. . . Would the HE509T 32moa circle be a hinderance on a carbine vs the 65moa on the AEMS?
I know I'm late to the party, but here is my take on this.

The advantage of the 65MOA circle, is it roughly accounts for mechanical offset at short range. EOTech uses a 68MOA circle, because for absolute co-witness, with standard AR front sights, that exactly accounts for the mechanical offset, at 7 yards. 65MOA is close enough though.

So, for speed and accuracy, at short range, rather than adding cognitive load, by thinking about how far to shift the dot (especially in unusual shooting positions), you merely snap to the bottom hash mark on the circle, and make the shot.

Its why I won't use a sight without that type of reticle, for the role you describe: speed and accuracy, at 100 yards and closer. Hell, for most 5.56 rounds, if you zero for 50/200, the bullet is within 2" of the dot all the way out 225yds, and you can use the bottom of the circle inside 15 yds. Makes the rifle very versatile.

[Clusterfrack]

I agree with all of this, and wouldn't want anything other than the EOTech on my work rifle.

However, the work gun doesn't need to be always on, ready for use at a moments notice. So the short battery life isn't a problem, and its very unlikely the autopsy it off will be a problem.

Different story for the home defense gun, that has to be always on, and ready to go. On that, I currently use a SIG XDR, which also has the circle/dot reticle. However, I am considering switching to the 510 or 512, to get the larger field of view, the long battery life, and the circle/dot reticle. Those three options XDR, 510, & 512, aren't quite as good as the EOTech in many ways, but for being always on, ready at a moments notice, with the circle/dot reticle they are a better choice, IMO.

Makes sense. I really like the AEMS, and have it on my main home defense carbine.

I will not use open emitter optics for any serious use, but that's because the rifles are used in the field as well as indoors.

[Up1911Fan]

I'm considering a 509T or AEMS for a new Scorpion Micro. Need to get hands on with an AEMS to see if it would be too big for it.