Red Dot choices

[MikhailBarracuda91]

Yeah it's easy to sell a chinese red dot for $120 when another company footed the bill for R&D.

It's true. I have an Aimpoint as well, I always support the "trailblazers" of the industry. But as with most inventions, the original was copied and then eventually improved.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[MS556]

Yeah it's easy to sell a chinese red dot for $120 when another company footed the bill for R&D.

And not only stealing the technology and avoiding the R&D expense, but then using lower grade material and lower quality control.

They work until they don’t. The don’t usually comes sooner. And always when you need the optic the most.

We are having this debate now about outsourcing so much of our economy to the Chinese. It’s time to rethink the consequences of Made in China for many reasons. From an AR tech forum perspective, lower grade materials and poor quality control are pretty good reasons. You really can’t have much of either for $100-$120.

[Mysteryman]

Aimpoint isn't a domestic product and its excellent. The Colt M4 was sold to the US government for over $1000 for a long time. Once Colt lost the sole source, the prices came down, but not so much that it would incriminate them. FN now makes the EXACT same product for less money.

Much like rifle's, optics are very much the same in this regard. Aimpoint spent the money researching and developing new technologies to create the amazing products we have available today.
However, you have to pay for that investment they made. Companies like Holosun, Sig, and others have copied the Aimpoint product to great success and at a fraction of the cost.

I'm not saying a Romeo 4 is the same quality as an Aimpoint. But the value in the Sig product is undeniable. Not to mention that the Romeo 4 lineup is rather proven by now (especially the 4M and 4T) there's actually photos of British SAS using the 4T
https://thereptilehouseblog.com/2019...-romeo-4t-fde/
The Romeo 4M originally was around $400, but the 4T made it obsolete to law enforcement. So now there's basically an excessive amount of unsold 4M's floating around for excellent prices. (Not to mention they use an Aimpoint micro mount)

I never said Aimpoint was domestic. I did say that Aimpoint is the GOLD standard, the original and manufactured in a FRIENDLY nation that doesn't do it's best to shit on the rest of the world for their own gain.... Like CHINA. Making an ethical purchase decision should play a larger role than it currently does. Same goes for quality, unfortunately all people seem to see is the price tag and then the warranty.

Aimpoint is the GOLD standard. Standard meaning the bar to which all others are measured against. If you can't offer an optic that meets the GOLD standard or beats it, then why bother at all? The SIG lineup is offshore garbage. One dude in Africa smoking room temperature IQ types in an urban setting is hardly empirical evidence to the quality of the brand. By that metric it still falls short of Aimpoint, who have been used to plant scumbags for what, almost 40 years?? In that time companies like Holosun(who makes optics for SIG) Vortex, Primary Arms, Bushnell etc can't come up with something that performs even on par let alone surpasses an Aimpoint.

What LEO's use and to a certain extent what the MIL uses should not be taken at face value without doing some research into the reasons behind the selection and the complaints with said selection. Budget plays a role, specific mission requirements plays a role, and support plays a roll. Remember, the go fast MIL units don't care about cost, or limited effectiveness. If the item works for the mission they need it for then it's good enough. How many different AR setups do SF guys have? They don't use the same setup for all environments, or all hours of the day. Comparing their choices and selection(envious for sure) to that of the average shooter is neither realistic nor helpful.

Mission drives the gear train..

[MikhailBarracuda91]

I never said Aimpoint was domestic. I did say that Aimpoint is the GOLD standard, the original and manufactured in a FRIENDLY nation that doesn't do it's best to shit on the rest of the world for their own gain.... Like CHINA. Making an ethical purchase decision should play a larger role than it currently does. Same goes for quality, unfortunately all people seem to see is the price tag and then the warranty.

Aimpoint is the GOLD standard. Standard meaning the bar to which all others are measured against. If you can't offer an optic that meets the GOLD standard or beats it, then why bother at all? The SIG lineup is offshore garbage. One dude in Africa smoking room temperature IQ types in an urban setting is hardly empirical evidence to the quality of the brand. By that metric it still falls short of Aimpoint, who have been used to plant scumbags for what, almost 40 years?? In that time companies like Holosun(who makes optics for SIG) Vortex, Primary Arms, Bushnell etc can't come up with something that performs even on par let alone surpasses an Aimpoint.

What LEO's use and to a certain extent what the MIL uses should not be taken at face value without doing some research into the reasons behind the selection and the complaints with said selection. Budget plays a role, specific mission requirements plays a role, and support plays a roll. Remember, the go fast MIL units don't care about cost, or limited effectiveness. If the item works for the mission they need it for then it's good enough. How many different AR setups do SF guys have? They don't use the same setup for all environments, or all hours of the day. Comparing their choices and selection(envious for sure) to that of the average shooter is neither realistic nor helpful.

Mission drives the gear train..

Thanks for regurgitating the same sentiment that everyone already agrees with. I'm seriously wondering if you even own an Aimpoint. You must also think Russian AK's are trash. But anyways thanks for the post, it was very educational. It's almost as if James Yeager typed it

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Woollymonster]

Returning to the topic:

Does anyone use/love the Aimpoint CompM4 anymore? When I see an Aimpoint at Ben Avery or just out in the sticks it’s almost always a T2.

I have had a Comp M4 on one of my carbines for over a decade now. I also have a T2 Micro on another. Both are great. Neither has ever let me down. Supposedly, the M4 is the most rugged and has a claimed battery life of 8 years on a simple AA battery.

I just ordered a Comp M4s for a new DD MK18 SBR. Can't go wrong with Aimpoint for a great RDS.

f7DjCyr.png

[Mysteryman]

Thanks for regurgitating the same sentiment that everyone already agrees with. I'm seriously wondering if you even own an Aimpoint. You must also think Russian AK's are trash. But anyways thanks for the post, it was very educational. It's almost as if James Yeager typed it

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Apparently not everyone agrees with it. Plenty here are still buying cheap Chinese garbage optics then attempting to sing their praise. There isn't a red dot sight on the market that can meet or beat the performance of an Aimpoint. Marketing gimmicks, "amazing warranty" or simply low cost(and low quality) are what the other brands use as selling features..

[R0CKETMAN]

I’m considering going back to Eotech

Exps 3-0 I’m thinking

Will compliment my James Yeager never failed me Primary Arms RD’s and my Aimpoint T-2s

[MistWolf]

...The Colt M4 was sold to the US government for over $1000 for a long time. Once Colt lost the sole source, the prices came down, but not so much that it would incriminate them. FN now makes the EXACT same product for less money...

The contract setting the price of the M4 and naming Colt as the sole supplier for a certain number of years, was agreed upon to settle the law suit Colt brought against the government for releasing the TDP without Colt's permission.

The parts & assemblies the FN M4 interchange with those of the Colt M4 and does the same job, but that doesn't mean FN is making the EXACT same product. There are details and processes that will be different.

[Core781]

Is this a Sassy boy? I disagree with the Aimpoint is master race argument you make. I agree they make some of the best red dots, but there are other optics that are as good or better.

[26 Inf]

Aimpoint isn't a domestic product and its excellent. The Colt M4 was sold to the US government for over $1000 for a long time. Once Colt lost the sole source, the prices came down, but not so much that it would incriminate them. FN now makes the EXACT same product for less money.

The contract setting the price of the M4 and naming Colt as the sole supplier for a certain number of years, was agreed upon to settle the law suit Colt brought against the government for releasing the TDP without Colt's permission.

Nonetheless, Colt price gouged. Here is how it went:

The origin of the “M4 Addendum” traces back to the improper release of the M4 TDP by the US Army’s Rock Island Arsenal to the US Navy’s NSWC-Crane in early 1996. NSWC-Crane had requested a copy of the M4A1 TDP to support the solicitation of accessories for the M4 SOPMOD kit.

While soliciting an adaptor for training ammunition, NSWC-Crane provided the M4A1 TDP to 21 vendors in August/96. As one of the potential bidders, Colt was very much surprised to receive a copy of their own TDP drawings, and gave notice that the terms of the 1967 Licensing Agreement had breached. NSWC-Crane quickly attempted to recover all copies of the TDP and sent out non-disclosure agreements (NDA) to the other 20 vendors. All of the vendors except FN Manufacturing complied. FN Manufacturing officials had balked on one of the five terms of the NDA, refusing to state whether they had safeguarded the TDP while it was in their possession. Instead, they provided a letter asserting that they had not improperly used the data.....

COLT SUES

......Settlement negotiations between Colt and the Army dragged on through 1997. In December 1997, an agreement was reached. Colt would waive its damage claims and leave the previous terms of the 1967 licensing agreement intact with regards to the M16 TDP. In return, the Army agreed to not use the M4 TDP for competitive procurement for a set period of time, ensuring Colt’s sole-source status. The resulting agreement was dubbed the “M4 Addendum”.

However, FN Manufacturing still hoped to gain a piece of M4 procurement, and found their chance in May/98. The Army announced that it was awarding Colt a $8,296,925 contract for 15,925 M4/M4A1 Carbines. The following day, FN Manufacturing delivered an unsolicited proposal claiming that they were also capable of producing the M4 for the US Army. The Army’s rejection of the proposal led to FN Manufacturing filing suit in the US Court of Federal Claims.

A series of dismissals and appeals ultimately led to FN Manufacturing challenging the Army’s right to give Colt sole-source rights to the M4, given its similarity to the M16. This placed the Army is the awkward position of claiming that the M4 was really far different than the M16 and XM177, after originally claiming that the M4 had about 80% in common with the M16.The US Court of Federal Claims ultimately dismissed FN Manufacturing’s protests, ruling that the Army was well within its rights to forego any claims to the M4 TDP.

At the time, it probably seemed like a good deal to give Colt sole-source rights to the M4, in return for the DOD maintaining its rights to second-source the M16 and its spares. Back in the late 1990s, the US Army and other service branches intended to issue far more M16 rifles than M4 carbines.

All seemed well, until the US Army dramatically expanded its issue of the shorter M4 Carbine over the M16 during its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, ultimately leading to decision to issue a “pure fleet” of M4. Likewise, the other service branches began to increase their issue of the M4, most notably the decision of the US Marine Corps to issue the carbine as a replacement for pistols and rifles among senior enlisted personnel and field-grade officers.

COLT PROCEEDS TO PRICE GOUGE (my words)

At the same time, Colt’s prices for the M4 began to steadily increase. In December 1999, Colt was charging $521 per M4 carbine (DAAE20-98-C-0082-P00011). By December 2002, Colt’s price for an US Army-configuration M4 carbine was $912 (DAAE20-02-C-0115-P00004).

However, the Army was able to gain certain concessions over the years. In July 2006, Colt agreed to lower its prices, and begin to provide basic issue items like the Back Up Iron Sight (BUIS) and M4 Adaptor Rail System (ARS), which had formerly been provided to Colt as Government Furnished Material (GFM) (W52H09-04-D-0086-P00025).

Before this concession, the price of the M4 and M4A1 had grown to $1,012 and $1,029, respectively (W52H09-04-D-0086-0040). Afterwards, the price of a basic M4 dropped to $815, and with Colt-provided BUIS and ARS only $1,142 (W52H09-04-D-0086-0040).

At the time of the final sole-source delivery order in December 2010, Colt’s price was just over $1,221 per fully-equipped carbine

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...etition-06942/


FNH Lands Army M4 Contract, Underbids Colt, Remington

After a lengthy back-and-forth bidding war between Colt and Remington, one that would eventually involve the Government Accountability Office and the threat of a Congressional hearing, F.N. Herstal has won the contract to update and replace the Army’s aging rifles.

In April of 2012, Remington finally broke the chain of Colt contracts with the U.S. Army, placing an $84 million bid for a run of 120,000 M4A1s, with 24,000 carbines to be delivered starting September of this year.

The cost per Remington M4A1 was just $673 per. Their bid severely undercut Colt’s previous contract, which priced the rifles at over $1,200 a piece.

FN’s contract with the Army is $77 million for the first 120,000 rifles, which works out to a bottom line of just under $642 per M4A1. These will be manufactured at FNH USA in South Carolina along side the M16A4s and M249s FNH USA currently produces for the U.S. armed forces.

After Remington won the first bid, Colt immediately filed a complaint with the GAO stating that the company did not properly calculate the royalties as part of their bid, and the GAO found in Colt’s favor, at least partially.

“GAO reviewed the challenges raised by Colt and found that the agency failed to follow the solicitation criteria with regard to the evaluation of the offers’ total evaluated prices and sustained the protest on this basis. Colt’s other challenges were denied,” said Ralph O. White, council for the GAO.

While they agreed that they did not correctly figure for the royalties any M4 supplier owes Colt for Army contracts, the GAO rejected the claims that Remington did not have the manufacturing capabilities to supply the military with firearms in this quantity.

Following the decision, the GAO told the Army that they had 65 days to solicit new bids from vendors or face Congress if they went ahead and signed the Remington contract. Not willing to face the legislature over a budgetary decision, the Army complied.

Although the list of bidders was confidential, it was obviously going to be between Colt, Remington and F.N. Herstal.

https://www.guns.com/news/2013/02/26...colt-remington