Originally Posted by
Adrenaline_6
Talk about reading comprehension...the auto maker example was given to point out that even though the Japanese and Korean automakers were cheap crap at one time, they eventually equaled then surpassed the US competition, and still do for the most part. At the time when they were already better quality wise they were also cheaper. So the theory of not getting a quality product by paying less is an absolute garbage statement. You keep side stepping it...for good reason I guess.
I didn't side step anything. You made the ignorant assumption that my mentioning of Japanese branded vehicles being made in North America was what made them better. I mentioned their manufacturing location to illustrate the irony of where the Japanese brands are being built compared to the big 3 "American" brands. Quality can be built in most nations, it simply isn't what is desired when a company outsources. Outsourcing/offshoring your production is about cutting costs and maximizing margins. The big 3 had already stripped a lot of quality out of their vehicles when they were exclusively made in North America. Outsourcing simply increased their margins even further; At the cost of what little quality they had left.
Like you said, the Japanese brands(Sorry, Korean cars are garbage) were and are often still cheaper than the big 3 competing models. The sales for the big 3 come from the blind patriots who can't see the lack of quality over their burning desire to "buy American". These people live in the past and survive on bullshit tales from their elders about what brand is quality and what is not. Outdated biased data is the order of the day. However, we now see that import brands from all over the globe are quickly outpacing domestic brands, and for good reason.
You ignore the cheap brands like Delton, PSA, etc whicch are also the same basic product as a Colt, just not as good quality wise. Sure they are also way cheaper and a lot less reliable, but that is the point I am trying to make. There are quality choices out there that are fine quality wise but you don't have to pay primo prices if you don't want to. Yes a KAC is overall a better rifle in many ways than a Colt, not many would argue against that. The point is that many feel the Colt is good enough for what they need and don't want to pay the extra money for a KAC, Larue, DD, Noveske. etc. Some do. I personally would love a KAC and would have bought one had it been in stock, but it wasn't and the deal on a DDM4V5 that I got was too good to pass up at the time. I did convince a friend to buy one and he did. From thhat standpoint I think the juice is worth the squeeze. By the time you change things out like (trigger, stock, add buis, etc) the KAC is well worth it and to get another brand to shoot as smooth takes more time and money.
I ignore the cheap brands because they're cheap garbage. Hobby grade AR15 patterned rifles. They are mechanically the same product, they are however not even close when it comes to materials and craftsmanship. Exactly the same story for red dot knock offs. The Colt is the BASELINE not the top of the line. Yes, for the majority of AR users a stock 6920 will do the job. For the guy who wants to spend extra on a KAC I say go for it. You won't get an inferior gun, but you may not get a lot more than a 6920 for the price you pay. Here's the difference, if you buy a 6920 or a KAC you're getting grade "A" quality goods. You may be over paying for the KAC as it relates to performance, but you're still getting grade "A" goods. Once you've reached the baseline, the gains for going above(in cost) are incremental not monumental. Hence the Aimpoint PRO, and the H1 series. They're baseline red dot sights, but not the most feature rich/advanced options from Aimpoint. Just as reliable, just as well built, just baseline models.
By your own omission above you indicate that you bought a DD over a KAC because of price and price alone. Nothing wrong with a DD at all, excellent rifles. However you indicate that you really would like a KAC. So why not adjust your financial priorities and get the KAC? The answer is this. The DD was as you say a deal you could not pass up. And saving money over the KAC meant you could spend the difference on other shit you likely didn't/don't need. The lure of stretching your dollars to acquire more crap strikes again. Your justification for buying a KAC makes sense, provided you like the stock, BUIS, trigger and feel of how the rifle shoots. Those are all personal choices centered around their VALUE to you the consumer. However, none of the above items makes the gun any more durable or reliable than the DD you bought or the plain 6920. In fact none of the items listed makes the gun perform any better, except for the trigger.
And that is but 1 of several factors involved with precision.
In your response to the torture tests, I get your skepticism, but with that attitude, nothing new would ever be used. It's a catch 22 situation.
I hear you. One need only look at the alternatives and compare them to the tried and true. Is there a red dot on the market that meets or beats an Aimpoint in any area? NO. So why would I entertain even trying one if it is already inferior to what is known?
The cell phones and cameras are absolutely a necessity to stay relevant in the market. To say it is a gimmick is absolute denial. People don't want to have to carry an SLR with them to get great family pics on a vacation. It is now unnecessary to do so thanks to your claimed "gimmick". Lens quality does make a difference, that is also part of the cost that goes into the camera along with the megapixel sensor and processing. Like I mentioned, the phone manufacturers could easily make a cell phone that beats a T2 spec in toughness, take out the processing power, put in an led read out screen on it with a dial for brightness and with the battery tech now days, would run forever. They could do it and it wouldn't cost as much as a T2 either, it wouldn't even be close...on top of the fact that almost no one would buy it. This is my point that you keep missing. The Aimpoint is a good product, it just isn't worth what they are charging anymore and the die hard fan boys like you keep it that way.
Photos taken with a phone are far from amazing. They're basic level images that capture the event/scene and nothing more. Digital zoom is garbage compared to optical zoom. The push for "better" cameras is from the dumb public who feel the need to share every pathetic aspect of their lives on social media. The desire for the latest and greatest is the product of high pressure marketing strategies geared towards the same dumb public. You're absolutely right, the big brands could make rugged reliable long lasting phones. Unfortunately the masses have prioritized stupid shit like games, watching TV, photo filters, and 1 touch posting to social media as being more important/desirable than reliability, durability or battery life.
Aimpoint makes an excellent product. The price is what it is because people continue to feel that the value is there, simple economics. I'm no die hard fan boy of any brand. I am a die hard fan of shit that works. I love my ACOG's, excellent optics. I tried an MRO, couldn't get over the slight magnification so I sold it. I also had a Bushnell TRS25 on my rimfire gun. It isn't a life saving tool so there was no need to put an Aimpoint or Trijicon product on it. The TRS shit the bed a month into use. The one on the wife's gun died a few months later. Right, Chinese built garbage, but a "good old American company"...
Another side step...I never pigeon holed you into a Ferrari did I? I gave you choices...you chose to side step to avoid the reality of my truth.
No a comprehension fail. You assumed I left out the other brands to make my point. I left out the other brands because the example didn't require listing them all. Apparently for some it does. Let me be clear. I have no use for any sports car, high end exotic or domestic garbage. No, I would not take one for free as they are not capable of fulfilling my needs in a vehicle.
On the cameras, I design commercial systems, not residential. Some companies depend on these designs for security, protecting their workplace, their employees, their products and research, etc. This can also make or break a company, yet they choose the cheaper option because it is "good enough" for what they are trying to accomplish.
Right, the systems they select meet their minimum criteria for what they intend to use them for. I'm sure your clients have no illusion that the systems they chose are the "best" out there or that they are even equal to the top end systems.
For some reason your reading comprehension is not getting that I never, and I don't think anyone in this thread ever posted that the knock offs are just as good as an Aimpoint. They are not, but they will get there, just like the cheap Japanese and Korean cars did.
No they won't. They will never meet or beat the known brands until they put the same level of care and QC into their products. At that point they will be priced nearly the same and then it's all for not. I agree, that Aimpoint and other big brands can't sit idle either.
What I keep saying and let me lay it out simply so there is no misconceptions anymore:
1) Knock offs are not as good as an Aimpoint
2) Aimpoints are overpriced relative to the tech and materials going into it and the age of design
3) Some of the better knock offs are for the most part close enough to the same quality and durability of an Aimpoint for a lot less money
1. Correct
2. Nope they're not. Age is irrelevant as is the tech. It's the craftsmanship and material quality you're paying for.
3. Nope, there isn't a single knock off that comes close to the reliability, durability or battery life of an Aimpoint. Keeping in mind you need all three just to meet an Aimpoint, let alone beat one. Close enough means they are inferior by design, which means you're over paying no matter what the price(if we're comparing optics for the same intended role).
Bookmarks