L-3 Communications Corp. agreed to pay $25.6 million to settle claims that it knowingly supplied the U.S. military and law enforcement with thousands of defective holographic weapon sights that malfunction in hot, cold and humid conditions. 
 
 The company announced the settlement in a statement Tuesday, the same day the U.S. sued it for fraud in Manhattan federal court. 
 
 L-3’s EOTech unit has been paid “tens of millions of dollars” since 2004 by the Defense Department, Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation for weapon sights that were supposed to perform in temperatures ranging from -40 degrees to 140 degrees Fahrenheit (-40 degrees to 60 degrees Celsius) and in humid weather, the government said in its lawsuit. 
 
 The New York-based company failed to disclose tests that showed the sights were less accurate in extreme temperatures and degraded when exposed to moisture, the U.S. said. 
 
 “U.S. troops used EOTech’s optical sights in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in the jungle, mountains, desert and other extreme environmental conditions around the world,” the government said in its complaint. 
 
 In the complaint, the government named as defendants L-3, EOTech and EOTech’s president, Paul Mangano. The sought unspecified triple damages plus civil penalties of as much as $11,000 for each fraudulent claim. 
 
 L-3 dropped 1.1 percent to $124.61 in New York trading. 
 
 The settlement must be approved by a judge, L-3 said in the statement. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan declined to comment on the accord. 
 
 The case is U.S. v. L-3 Communications EOTech Inc., 15-cv-09262, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). ||||| EOTech values your business and is committed to providing you with the highest quality products. Provided below is information on four issues that may affect your EOTech Holographic Weapon Sight (“HWS”). EOTech has not issued a recall of any of its sights, and many of our customers continue to use their sights regularly. EOTech nonetheless wants you to be satisfied and is offering refunds at your option. 
 
 
 
 Depending on the age of your sight and the ways in which you use it, you might or might not be affected by these issues. Many HWS users experience no issues with their EOTech sights especially if (for example) the sight is used in close-quarter ranges, the target is in the center of the window, or the sight is re-zeroed frequently. We hope the information presented below is helpful. 
 
 
 
 Cold Weather Distortion 
 
 Cold weather distortion generally does not affect EOTech-branded HWS manufactured after March 2008. The historical issue with cold weather distortion was that the HWS’s aiming dot experienced distortion of size and shape when the sight was exposed to temperatures below 32° F. This became worse as the temperature approached -40° F. It had virtually no effect in warmer temperatures or at the close-quarter ranges where the HWS is typically used, because at those closer distances the distortion would not have a significant effect on the point of impact. Although generally unnoticeable to the naked eye, the distortion existed at colder temperatures. 
 
 
 
 Impact: Generally none for EOTech-branded sights manufactured after March 2008. For sights manufactured earlier, the sights affected are those used in cold weather for longer range shooting. 
 
 
 
 Reticle Fade (Moisture Incursion) 
 
 Reticle fade as a result of moisture incursion generally does not affect sights manufactured after July 2014. Even for sights manufactured before that date, the effect may not be substantial. The issue is that atmospheric moisture conditions can lead to the HWS’s reticle fading or eventually disappearing. It typically is noticeable first when the reticle appears to dim at the edges of the sight window. The sight’s age and environmental exposure are factors that accelerate reticle dimming. In many cases, however, this condition can be mitigated by increasing the brightness of the reticle, using the sight’s brightness controls. 
 
 
 
 Impact: None for any sights manufactured after July 2014. Potentially minimal impact for sights manufactured before that date, depending on the sight’s age and use. Whether your sight will experience reticle fade will depend on the factors discussed above. 
 
 
 
 Thermal Drift 
 
 EOTech’s sights experience a point of impact shift away from the point of aim when the sight is exposed to a temperature different from the temperature at which the sight was zeroed. After zeroing the sight at or near ambient temperature (73°F), the zero position will shift during operating temperature changes. The sight has the potential to shift approximately +/- 5 Minutes of Angle (“MOA”) at -40°F and 122°F. Due to thermal drift, the sight may not return to zero. The sights have the potential of approximately a +/- 2 MOA zero shift upon return to ambient (73°F) after being exposed to any temperature between -40°F and 122°F. 
 
 
 
 This shift results from natural thermal expansion or contraction that is present in various materials as they are heated or cooled, and is greater the more extreme the temperature change. For example, when a sight is zeroed at 70˚ F then acclimated to 50˚ F, less shift will occur. On the other hand, if zeroed at 70˚ F, then acclimated to 0˚ F, more shift occurs. The shift may not be significant to shooters who use their sights at close-quarters ranges. For instance, 5 MOA is a shift of 1.25 inches at 25 yards, and is 5 inches at 100 yards. It also is worth noting that thermal effects are evidenced to varying degrees in common optics, as well as in rifle barrels and ammunition as the environmental conditions change. In all events, to achieve optimum accuracy, the sight zero should be verified whenever the sight is exposed to marked temperature changes, and the sight should be re-zeroed as necessary. 
 
 
 
 There is no repair currently available to eliminate thermal drift. If your HWS experiences a degree of thermal drift that is unacceptable to you, and re-zeroing does not address the issue to your satisfaction, please contact EOTech, as described below, to obtain a refund of the purchase price. 
 
 
 
 Impact: The sight’s zero will be affected at varying operating temperatures. This may be minimal for sights used at close-quarter ranges and may be corrected by re-zeroing the sight. 
 
 
 
 Parallax 
 
 All optics experience varying degrees of parallax depending on use and operating conditions. Parallax is an apparent change in the point of aim resulting from a change in the position of the shooter. EOTech’s sights have little parallax when the reticle is in the center of the viewing window, which is the optimum sighting position and also is the correct place for zeroing the sight. On the other hand, if the user is looking through the sight at the outer edge of the sight window – an off-axis view – the parallax error might be up to 4±3 MOA (or a total of 14 MOA across the viewing window) at 71˚ F (for a sight properly zeroed). In other words, parallax can increase as the user’s view approaches the edge of the EOTech viewing window. To put this possible amount of off-axis error into perspective, 7 MOA equates to 1.75 inches at 25 yards or 7 inches at 100 yards. Viewing through the center of the window achieves the least parallax error. Parallax may increase as temperature changes from 71˚ F. At operating temperature extremes of -40˚ F or 122˚ F, there may be an additional 4 MOA of parallax. 
 
 
 
 Impact: Virtually none if the shooter is aiming through the center of the sight. Relatively small effect at close-quarter ranges, if the shooter is aiming through the very edge of the sight’s window. As described above, the effect is greater when the shooter is aiming off-center, at longer ranges, or at temperature extremes. 
 
 
 
 Customer Return Policy 
 
 We sincerely appreciate your business and will do our utmost to ensure your satisfaction. If you desire a full refund of your purchase price (plus shipping costs), please let us know by completing the form at www.eotechinc.com/return-authorization-request-form. 
 
 
 
 If you have any questions, please call our Customer Service Department at (888) 368-4656 or email us at support.eotech@L-3com.com. 
 
 
 
 Sincerely, 
 
 
 
 The EOTech Team ||||| 
 
 Equipped with EOTechs, a fire team with the Marine Corps’ 2nd Force Reconnaissance Company moves outside after clearing a building during a close-quarters tactics training event on a range at Stone Bay, part of Camp Lejeune, N.C., March 6, 2015. (Photo courtesy USMC) 
 
 U.S. Special Operations forces are using rifle sights that are supposed to help shooters accurately hit their targets but instead have a defect, acknowledged by the manufacturer, that potentially endangers the lives of service members in combat, according to court records and military officials. 
 
 The U.S. government is aware of the problem and sued the sight’s maker in November for fraud, accusing the company, L-3 Communications, of covering up a variety of issues with the sight, which has been used by every branch of the military, the FBI, the State Department and local law enforcement. 
 
 The company quickly settled for $25.6 million. “A sight that ‘almost works’ is not acceptable,” said Naval Criminal Investigative Service Director Andrew Traver in a news release the day the settlement was announced. 
 
 But more than four months later, the equipment has not been recalled or replaced, say current service members and military officials. Instead, it is still used by some units under Special Operations Command (SOCOM), according to Navy Cmdr. Matthew Allen, a spokesman for SOCOM. Units under SOCOM include Navy SEALs, Army Green Berets, Marine Corps Special Operation units, Delta Force and SEAL Team Six. The Marine Corps is also continuing to use thousands of the sights, said a Marine Corps spokesman, Maj. Tony Semelroth. 
 
 The company says it has fixed most of the problems raised in its dispute with the government — except for the one that could be the most serious, based on the government’s allegations. 
 
 That problem, known as thermal drift because it is weather-related, can cause the holographic weapon sight, or HWS, to be off target by six to 12 inches when a shooter is 300 feet away from a target, a common distance in a combat zone, according to the government’s lawsuit. Missing a target by as much as a foot can be disastrous for a soldier since it can be the difference between landing a fatal shot and missing the target. 
 
 [Infantry overhaul: How DARPA’s new experiments could shake up ground warfare] 
 
 In the lawsuit, an unnamed employee at the manufacturer was quoted as saying of this particular defect: “This is likely one of the worst types of failure, since most users won’t notice the problem until their life is on the line.” 
 
 The defect tends to surface when the sight is exposed to extreme temperatures, both hot and cold, according to the company — a norm in some combat environments such as Afghanistan, where wide changes in temperature are common. 
 
 The website of L-3’s EOTech unit, which is responsible for the sight, acknowledges that the thermal-drift problem has not been resolved. “There is no repair currently available to eliminate thermal drift,” EOTech’s website reads. “If your HWS experiences a degree of thermal drift that is unacceptable to you . . . please contact EOTech . . . to obtain a refund of the purchase price.” 
 
 “We believe that many of our customers are satisfied with the performance of their holographic weapon sights,” said Jason Maloni, a spokesman for EOTech, in an email. Maloni added that the company stands by its products and that it is pleased with the progress it is making toward remedying the thermal drift issue. 
 
 A joint force protection team of Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines practices advanced shooting techniques on a range in Kabul, Afghanistan, in this video posted by the Marines. (Marines) 
 
 The Pentagon acknowledges that some troops are using this particular sight. “We take this matter very seriously and pledge an unshakable commitment to the safety and well-being of our U.S. forces,” said Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Badger, a Pentagon spokesman. 
 
 SOCOM spokesman Allen said the sights are “only used in a role where the limitations of the equipment are not in conflict with the safety or effectiveness of our warfighters.” 
 
 But others have moved more swiftly to remove the sights altogether. In December, just weeks after EOTech settled its lawsuit with the U.S. government, the Denver police department issued a department-wide memo to pull the sights off its rifles immediately. 
 
 A series of problems 
 
 Complaints about the sight and its various models date back to the mid-2000s, soon after the Pentagon began regularly purchasing the equipment, a small rectangular device that sits on top of the rifle and projects holographic crosshairs over the target to help the shooter aim. 
 
 In winter 2007, when the company tried to secure a contract with the Norwegian military, the Norwegians found that in temperatures below 20 degrees, the sight began to fail, court documents assert. The crosshairs would expand and distort, causing the sight to be inaccurate. 
 
 EOTech tried to fix the cold-weather issue but never told the Pentagon, which had by then purchased large quantities of the sight, according to the U.S. government’s lawsuit. 
 
 Around this time, court records allege, a sales and marketing employee wrote an email to EOTech’s co-founder voicing concern that the company was not properly disclosing the cold-weather defect. 
 
 “Is it worth risking one person’s life on this? What if there is a guy in the mountains in Afghanistan, and he brings up his sight . . . on the enemy who has the drop on him with an AK[?],” the employee wrote. “He takes aim as quickly as possible and puts a shot that misses wide due to the distortion of the reticle [the crosshairs]. He’s dead a fraction of a second later. . . . This is a dramatic example, but this is the risk that is posed the longer the end-user is unaware of the risk.” 
 
 In spring 2008, EOTech presented the problem to the U.S. military and said it had a solution, according to the lawsuit. 
 
 In its proposal, the company stated that EOTech “has not received a single report of a problem from the field regarding optical performance of the sight at cold temperature” and failed to mention that the Norwegians had rejected the sights because the issue could put their soldiers’ lives at risk, according to the government’s complaint. The firm claimed that the fix was undertaken on the company’s own initiative, the lawsuit said. 
 
 [Photos, details emerge of U.S. commandos working off new combat ship] 
 
 Meanwhile, another problem was emerging with the sight — this one having to do with its performance in humid climates. 
 
 Despite EOTech advertising that some of its sights were waterproof after being submerged 66 feet underwater, the sights — through faulty seals — would accumulate moisture, causing the glass around the crosshairs to fog and the crosshairs themselves to dim, according to the lawsuit. Even though EOTech knew about the issue for years, as alleged in court records, the company did not tell the U.S. military until March 2013 during a contract review and after a video on YouTube appeared that showed the crosshairs fading. 
 
 In July 2014, the company told the Pentagon it had fixed this other problem as well. In the run-up to the announcement, however, there were still worries inside the company, according to the lawsuit. 
 
 A project manager relayed concerns from an employee to EOTech’s president, according to court records, saying, “[The employee] is concerned that as an operator goes through that door in combat that the device will fail causing the operator to be killed or wounded.” 
 
 In both cases — with the cold-weather problem and with the humidity issue — EOTech said the “fixes” were upgrades to a sight it claimed had already met the military’s specifications, according to the lawsuit. 
 
 But a year later, the FBI, which was also using the sights, stumbled on yet another issue with the equipment after conducting tests in its ballistic research facility. 
 
 Unlike the problem discovered by the Norwegians, the crosshairs did not change shape. Nor did it dim as with the humidity problem. Instead, hot or cold temperatures were causing the reticle to move, unbeknown to the user. 
 
 With help from the U.S. Navy’s Crane division, the FBI presented EOTech with evidence of the problem, called thermal drift. In November, the U.S. government sued the company for fraud. The company settled on the same day the lawsuit was filed. 
 
 A disclaimer included with the equipment after the settlement acknowledges the thermal-drift issue. A month later, EOTech president Paul Mangano, who was also named in the government’s lawsuit, resigned from the company. Mangano declined to comment for this article. 
 
 Marines still use the sights 
 
 Marine dog handlers with the U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command use the holographic sights during live-fire canine training at Camp Pendleton, Calif. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Lance Cpl. Roderick Jacquote) 
 
 By this time, the sights were widely in use by the U.S. military. Since 2001, according to publicly available contract data, EOTech has been paid about $24 million in the purchasing of the sights. Every branch of service, including the Coast Guard, has purchased them. 
 
 The item is so ubiquitous that the Twitter account of the Navy SEALs, who are still using the sight, features a picture of a person holding a rifle mounted with the EOTech product. 
 
 According to Marine Corps spokesman Semelroth, the Marine Corps continues to use 6,000 of the sights purchased between 2007 and 2012 — the years in which some of the most serious issues were found with the sights. 
 
 [Why the Marines have failed to adopt a new sniper rifle in the past 14 years] 
 
 “At this time, the Marine Corps has not been directed nor does it intend to dispose of these systems unless defects are discovered that jeopardize our Marines’ safety or negatively impacts their abilities to accomplish the mission,” Semelroth said in an email. 
 
 Toward the end of last year, SOCOM issued a military-wide “Safety of Use Message” that highlighted the limitations of the sight, noting that the military was “developing a bridging strategy” for the equipment. 
 
 According to Allen, SOCOM is evaluating other sights, including a potentially improved version of the EOTech for a long-term replacement for SOCOM’s close-combat sight requirements. Semelroth said the Marine Corps is conducting a similar search and running “a series of tests on its EOTech inventory to confirm performance meets or exceeds the equipment requirement.” 
 
 State Department security teams also use the sight at U.S. consulates and embassies around the world, though they do not use the sight exclusively, according to Aaron Testa, a State Department Diplomatic Security spokesman. 
 
 According to Testa, the State Department Diplomatic Security Service “is in the process of procuring replacements for those EOTech optics we have deemed necessary to replace.” 
 
 Following the lawsuit’s settlement, EOTech has also not issued a recall. 
 
 Anthony Tai, an EOTech co-founder who later served as the chief technology officer of the company until 2011, said that the company should have recalled the sight. As one of its original designers, Tai was consulted on a number of the equipment’s issues prior to his departure from the company, according to the lawsuit. 
 
 “But you recall it and then what?” said Tai, who still occasionally consults for the company and said the firm has struggled to resolve the problem. “You need to replace it with something that has all the problems fixed. No point in replacing it with the same thing.” 
 
 EOTech’s sights are just one of many publicly available products that accomplish the same task. And some other government agencies have already gotten rid of the holographic weapons sights. 
 
 During an October visit to the FBI’s armory, agency personnel were seen disposing of the sights in bulk. The FBI, which declined to comment, uses sights manufactured by Aimpoint. 
 
 Allen said EOTech is not fulfilling any new contracts with the military’s Special Operations forces. But EOTech has not been prohibited from “submitting for future business.” 
 
 Julie Tate and Steven Rich contributed to this report. 
 
 This story has been updated to clarify remarks by Cmdr. Matthew Allen, a spokesman for SOCOM. 
 
 Read more: 
 
 What interior design students think combat outposts should look like 
 
 The killer robot threat: Pentagon examining how enemy nations could empower machines 
 
 Pentagon tries to rebrand the beleaguered $400 billion F-35 with a 14-stop tour
– EOTech, a firm that has supplied gun sights to the US military, admits that its Holographic Weapon Sight suffers from a defect known as thermal drift. And in November, the company's parent L-3 Communications Corp. agreed to pay $25.6 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the federal government, Bloomberg reported, which claimed EOTech knowingly sold $24 million worth of bad sights to the Defense Department. Months later, though, US Special Operations forces are still using the HWS, which "potentially endangers the lives of service members in combat," per a Washington Post investigation. Thermal drift (the most serious of the several defects with the sight) can cause a shot to be off target by six to 12 inches—"one of the worst types of failures," per an unnamed employee quoted in the lawsuit, "since most users won't notice the problem until their life is on the line." Problems with the HWS first emerged in 2007, when the Norwegian military noticed that the holographic crosshairs would distort in cold weather. But EOTech didn't tell the Pentagon, even as it continued supplying sights. After that, it was discovered that faulty seals caused the sights to fog up in humid weather. Again, EOTech kept quiet. Finally, the FBI, while conducting ballistic tests, discovered the thermal drift, which occurs in both hot and cold temperatures. A Pentagon rep confirmed that some troops still use the sights, adding that military officials "have an unshakable commitment to the safety" of US armed forces. Another military rep tells the Post the sights are only used in instances that "the limitations of the equipment" don't put troops at risk. Denver police, however, abandoned the sights soon after the November settlement.