Red Dot choices

[sva01]

It didn't according to an old thread with similar scenario. Not a knock on an Aimpoint, because that's a tough ask and I wouldn't expect it to. This area is where there is allowed rotation and is thin and hollow for the most part.

https://www.amdtelemedicine.com/tele...s-systems.html

Well then it's a good thing that they all have fixed rear and FSB front iron sights!

[Esq.]

Well then it's a good thing that they all have fixed rear and FSB front iron sights!

Up close, I've used just the tube itself as a "cave man" ghost ring....Not superbly accurate but you can get hits that way.

[Core781]

You must have peed in someones post toasties at Aimpoint because I've had excellent warranty service from them. I had a rifle that was BURNED UP IN A FIRE with an Aimpoint on it. The Aimpoint was literally scrap. I sent it to them, not really expecting anything. I got a call asking about what happened to it and I explained the situation honestly. Guy says, "We have quite a few used, LEO units we took on trade right now, be ok if I sent you one as an exchange?" ...Uh, YEA!

Now, I do know they won't service DRMO units etc....I did run into that issue with an Aimpoint I bought at a gunshow and tried to send back for an issue.

Once they stop making a model your screwed. Their warranty ends with the project. They could have offered a replacement with an existing product but they don’t. Or even a credit towards a new product. The positive is that they typically only break internally after years of use, usually electronic in nature. A company like Leuopold will make it right even years after production, same with Vortex. But this can change if they’re bought out by a conglomerate.

[Core781]

I bought two Vortex Crossfire red dots for range guns that my boys use. I had one of the guns leaning up against the wall with the stock on a concrete floor. Rifle slid and landed hard on the concrete floor and knocked the battery knob off the side of the optic in one clean piece. Optic was obviously dead right there. Vortex replaced it in prompt fashion but I hope that my Aimpoints would handle that scenario differently. Again, they're for range toys and bought because they were inexpensive but I'm not sure how robust they are...

That is a weak point on the Crossfire. I tossed my heavy carbine around and slammed it quite a bit, including multiple team member drills where our carbines collided including a number of drops and dumps and the dial is intact. However, no drops on concrete, and did not run it over with a vehicle.. I use BUIS and FSB on my carbines: have four setup the same just slightly different barrel lengths. My last shoot involved point shooting with the red dot turned off. I had a two inch group at 20ft. with the BUIS down. Most guys were shooting six inches, some more. One in particular who spends a huge amount of money on his kit was point shooting well over six inches which is a fail. I tend to shoot at the instructor level with sights. So in the event you do destruct your Crossfire, you can point shoot or “tube” the threat and get the job done very fast. Inside of thirty feet I’m point shooting center mass in a real or training scenario.

I don’t know who would run over an Aimpoint or slam it into concrete being an $700-800 unit but I would guess it will also be subject to failure, hopefully it is in fact significantly more robust being six or seven times the money.

[Mysteryman]

I already mentioned what capitalism is and agree with you on that part, but I also mentioned that it is a double edged sword that will come back and bite you in the ass if you try and charge the customer too much.

Most of the rest of your logic in that statement is flawed beyond measure. Just because Aimpoint makes a quality product, and I never said they didn't, nobody did, it doesn't mean their prices aren't too high, margins excessive, and they can't charge less. Like many products that enter a market after a well known product has dominated it, those companies, as a strategy, have to offer something superior and revolutionary OR offer something competitive, cut their margins and offer price incentive to get there foothold or it doesn't happen. That's just business.

Apparently you're not up to speed on what capitalism is. Why would a company lower their prices if they are still making strong sales??
A price reduction is only necessary when sales drop off. In the case of Aimpoint, I have heard that they cannot sell their optics for less than they charged the US gov for them. Regardless, it's a dumb move to cut your own margins for no necessary reason.

Not getting the same quality for less is also a false statement. So a Colt isn't the same quality (durability and performance wise) as other AR's that cost more? Shake awake is a tweak that helps "add" to battery life - and it isn't that new in the grand scheme of things, just not applied to the red dot until recently.

Not even the same comparison.

I never said we were getting the same quality as an Aimpoint, but that it has got to the point where it is for the most point negligible and that the juice was not worth the squeeze anymore.
Here's your quote "What I choose is to pay a fair price for a quality product." The definition of quality is what many seem to lack. There's no
doubt Aimpoint is the benchmark for red dot sights. So if your knock off brand can't meet or beat the performance it simply isn't quality. Accepting an inferior performing product is not paying a fair price for a quality product. It is simply being cheap and greedy and wanting everything without sacrificing for anything.
The other half of your statement revolves around "fair price" that my friend is what is determined on an individual consumer level. Some people think the cost of a Ferrari is fair for the product they get. Others think the price is insane.

The knock off products like Holosun and Vortex are simply cheap in price(and quality). Which makes it easy for people to justify the cost, especially when it has the "amazing warranty" which you will likely need. The other reality is that the vast vast majority of firearms owners are simply plinkers and not shooters.
It's estimated that less than 1% of firearms owners ever seek professional training. That means 99% are dabblers, plinkers, dirt shooters. The type of folks who won't run their gear hard or ever see serious round counts. It is this demographic where cheap knock off products excel in sales.



The design has barely evolved dude - come on. They just released the T2, which is barely an improvement over a T1, which is in itself 13 years old. No one said any of the brands were releasing amazing new technology. No one. Just incremental tweaks and improvements.

"The product doesn't need to evolve" is what killed the US auto manufacturers too. At one time Japanese cars were crap, then S Korean cars were also crap. Look at them now. Burying the US - quality wise. Relying on reputation, laying on your haunches, charging significantly more for absolutely nothing, and relying on blind fan boy support for sales while other manufacturers equal and eventually surpass you gets your business in a world of hurt quick. That is Capitalism.

Has the wheel evolved?? No. It's still round. The materials have changed, as have the processes for manufacture but the wheel is a wheel. Shit doesn't need to evolve to stay relevant or viable. Are we still using red dot sights? YES. Has any other manufacture made leaps and bounds changes or improvements to the red dot on the base level? NO. The "tweaks" are gimmicks and provide nothing substantial.

Your automotive example is flawed. Domestic brands let the quality slip, and are now outpaced by foreign brands. It had nothing to do with Toyota, Honda(which are made in North America), etc inventing or discovering some new wonder method of manufacturing. You're absolutely right in that the big 3 rested on their reputation and what I call blind patriotism of it's consumers coupled with outsourcing(south American production) while not reducing prices to meet the quality they were offering. Only a fool blindly continues to buy a product that has consistently dropped in quality and performance. That simply isn't the case with regards to Aimpoint.

Most logical people here are for the same thing. Fair price for a quality product. You seem to ignore the fair price part. That is subjective. If it is fair to you then pay the +$700 for a T2 and rock on. I, and many others don't think so. Respect that opinion like we do yours. No one said you were stupid for buying an Aimpoint. If you somehow feel that it is being implied, then that is your own conscience speaking to you, not us.

Correct, a fair price for a quality product. Paying first world wages for first world tech and materials means I pay higher prices for a product.
That product has a solid reputation and is built in an allied democratic nation. The others are none of the above.

Your last statement is also flawed logic. So if both products are not really having problems, one has a long standing reputation and the other one doesn't, they differ only in opinion and reputation, performance and durability are in the real world negligible. You mentioned above yourself that you are all for paying a fair price for a quality product. Isn't that what that is then?

Context is important and was not included. The knock offs do not have decades of use in combat. The knock offs don't get abused like the known brands do. There's plenty of videos of Holosuns and Vortex optics shitting the bed in basic testing. On the surface it looks like the knock offs are excellent.
Only after looking at the use/abuse regimen and the track record do you see them for what they are. Cheap knock offs.

I would have no problem buying an Aimpoint nowadays, just not for what they are currently charging. For the most part, it is a rugged aluminum tube, an led, and optical quality glass. They are charging almost what a modern cell phone costs which has a significant processor, RAM memory, multiple lens megapixel cameras - front and back, a Quad HD AMOLED screen, and an OS that gets updated on a regular basis. There is no way it is worth near what they are charging.

you want to talk about over priced junk, electronics lead the way. Cell phones haven't evolved in years. More gimmicks without anymore useful performance or features. They are designed to fail to guarantee repeat sales. That isn't innovation, that's a business model. What's comical is that people have no problem spending $1000 on a cell phone which they will likely chase/replace with another in 2-4 years, but whine and piss and moan about $600 on an optic that will last decades.... Priorities, it's what people can't seem to figure out.

Here's the question I ask everyone who loves their cheap knock offs. If I offered you an Aimpoint or a Holosun for free, which would you take?

I thought so...

Me in orange

[Adrenaline_6]

Mystery you still refuse to get it and I doubt you ever will. I know what capitalism is and I gave examples. At one time, the Japanese and Korean cars WERE crap, but they improved and then surpassed the US auto makers, AND for a cheaper price. You actually think that they are better because some factories are in the US? Come on dude, you can't be that out of touch with reality can you? We actually studied the Japanese factories on how to improve our production process. Get real.

You wrote, and I quote "The reality is you simply can't get the same quality for less."..the Colt example proves your statement was just plain bs and you know it.

As far as evolving and your wheel example, also bs. Just because it is still the same shape doesn't mean it hasn't evolved. Try throwing on a set of bias plys on your car, better yet, how about a set of wagon wheels. See how that works for you. Those are tweaks and evolving a design, not gimmicks. Some ideas work great, some don't, but that is part of the evolutionary process.

There are also many videos of some pretty brutal torture tests of those knock offs and they do pretty well. Sure, there are still cheap junk out there, but not all are.

So you are saying the cell phone hasn't evolved...just gimmicks... lmao. Try comparing a camera shot from 2007, when the T1 was invented, to a modern one now. Absolute garbage. Even one 5 years ago would make it look silly. Try browsing the internet with that phone. Try downloading and watching a video with it....yea...good luck buddy.

The truth is I don't buy my cell phones, I get them updated every 2 years for free with my job. It's pretty nice, but the example is there is a lot more tech and cost that go into a cell phone than a red dot. Absolutely no question in that. They could easily design a cell phone that meets the same rugged standards as a T2 by removing the "gimmicky" cameras, the "gimmicky" high def screen, throw in a cheap circuit board and just have an led readout. Guess how much that cell phone would cost? Peanuts.

Sure, I would take an Aimpoint for free, but that isn't what is being discussed now is it? You would take a Ferrari/Porsche/"fill in with your dream car" for free over what you bought too, so your point is invalid. I would even pay more for an Aimpoint than a knockoff....just not what it costs now.

My company is a major reseller for Axis cameras. They also are made in Sweden. Awesome cameras. Great quality, great durability, support and reputation. If I could afford it as a business, that is what I would buy and that is what I spec into my designs. Guess what though, a lot of businesses by the cheaper ones. Some are absolute garbage, some give Axis a run for its money which is why they have restructured pricing and introduced new lineups. They are still number one though and rightfully so. I have to be honest though, the only reason I have them on my house, and it is their cheaper lineup, is because I get them at cost. If not, even as an SME in my profession, I would get an alternative, because the quality difference, if any, is negligible for the difference in cost.

I get it dude, you like Aimpoint and no one else. Like I sad b4, you do you, that's great, I back you 100% in doing so too, but don't justify your viewpoint with spin and bs statements. It's like going to an Occupy Democrat page.

[Mysteryman]

Mystery you still refuse to get it and I doubt you ever will. I know what capitalism is and I gave examples. At one time, the Japanese and Korean cars WERE crap, but they improved and then surpassed the US auto makers, AND for a cheaper price. You actually think that they are better because some factories are in the US? Come on dude, you can't be that out of touch with reality can you? We actually studied the Japanese factories on how to improve our production process. Get real.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I never said Japanese auto makers got the advantage by building them in North America. I merely pointed out the irony that Japanese cars are built in North America and North American branded cars are built in South America. Why would the big 3 move their production outside of North America? Cheaper labour, to increase margins at the cost of quality. Same business model as Vortex, Holosun, Leupold(yes they use Chinese components). All as an attempt to sucker the consumer into their lower priced optics under the belief that they are just as good.


You wrote, and I quote "The reality is you simply can't get the same quality for less."..the Colt example proves your statement was just plain bs and you know it.

As far as evolving and your wheel example, also bs. Just because it is still the same shape doesn't mean it hasn't evolved. Try throwing on a set of bias plys on your car, better yet, how about a set of wagon wheels. See how that works for you. Those are tweaks and evolving a design, not gimmicks. Some ideas work great, some don't, but that is part of the evolutionary process.

And again, a comprehension fail. The Colt example you provide is not a fair comparison. A base 6920 is every bit as reliable as a tricked KAC, Noveske, Larue, etc. Window dressing on the boutique brands doesn't get you a more reliable product, it gets you creature comforts or role/mission specific add ons. The base product is the same. The same cannot be said for cheap knock off red dots compared to known brands. Your comparison is like debating an Aimpoint T1 to an H1. Same quality but different performance specs. Or compare a comp m3 to a PRO, again same quality, different specs.

There are also many videos of some pretty brutal torture tests of those knock offs and they do pretty well. Sure, there are still cheap junk out there, but not all are.

Great, some home brew torture tests. Where and how long has Holosun been serving? Vortex?

So you are saying the cell phone hasn't evolved...just gimmicks... lmao. Try comparing a camera shot from 2007, when the T1 was invented, to a modern one now. Absolute garbage. Even one 5 years ago would make it look silly. Try browsing the internet with that phone. Try downloading and watching a video with it....yea...good luck buddy.

Absolutely gimmicks. You don't need a 20 megapixel camera on your PHONE. In fact the lens quality makes more difference than the megapixel rating of the processor. You don't need a screen that goes from edge to edge. You don't need a phone that can run games, stream videos/TV.
Useless gimmicks. Maybe offer a phone that won't shatter the first time you drop it. Or a phone with a battery that lasts weeks not hours. Perhaps a phone that has a speaker that works, so we don't have to see people walking around on speaker phone talking to the ass end of their phone like the morons they are.
I use a phone I bought 2 years ago, and it was almost 2 years old when I bought it. Still makes calls, texts, and can check email. I can even look shit up online in a pinch. Imagine that..

The truth is I don't buy my cell phones, I get them updated every 2 years for free with my job. It's pretty nice, but the example is there is a lot more tech and cost that go into a cell phone than a red dot. Absolutely no question in that. They could easily design a cell phone that meets the same rugged standards as a T2 by removing the "gimmicky" cameras, the "gimmicky" high def screen, throw in a cheap circuit board and just have an led readout. Guess how much that cell phone would cost? Peanuts.

The tech in cell phones is far from new, they're simply compact personal computers that can make a phone call. I bet the big names have the next 3 or 4 generations already tested and ready for market. Apple pumps out another new lemon about every 9-15 months.

Sure, I would take an Aimpoint for free, but that isn't what is being discussed now is it? You would take a Ferrari/Porsche/"fill in with your dream car" for free over what you bought too, so your point is invalid. I would even pay more for an Aimpoint than a knockoff....just not what it costs now.

No, I wouldn't take a Ferrari for free. It's useless for what I need in a vehicle, it is incapable of doing the job.

My company is a major reseller for Axis cameras. They also are made in Sweden. Awesome cameras. Great quality, great durability, support and reputation. If I could afford it as a business, that is what I would buy and that is what I spec into my designs. Guess what though, a lot of businesses by the cheaper ones. Some are absolute garbage, some give Axis a run for its money which is why they have restructured pricing and introduced new lineups. They are still number one though and rightfully so. I have to be honest though, the only reason I have them on my house, and it is their cheaper lineup, is because I get them at cost. If not, even as an SME in my profession, I would get an alternative, because the quality difference, if any, is negligible for the difference in cost.

I get it dude, you like Aimpoint and no one else. Like I sad b4, you do you, that's great, I back you 100% in doing so too, but don't justify your viewpoint with spin and bs statements. It's like going to an Occupy Democrat page.

I agree, there is definitely a trade-off with some products where going with top of the line is simply costing you more and nothing else.
For a home security camera that's fine. For life saving equipment like an optic, firearm, a parachute, medical gear, hell even condoms. Skimping in these areas can have dire consequences. As I mentioned, most who own guns aren't shooters, most will never receive training, most will never run their gear hard, most will likely never shoot more a few thousand rounds in their life. For these people, a cheap optic fits the bill. Like you said, you do you, but don't try and convince the educated that cheap knock offs are "just as good as" because we both know they aren't.

I'm sure you read the part in my last post about people and their priorities. I suggest people read it again and be honest with themselves about what they currently see as a priority when they decide to piss and moan about the costs of quality goods.

In the Orange

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Mysteryman]

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).

Orange again

[Adrenaline_6]

Mystery, I will bow out of this because it has grown tiresome. You fail to understand what I write over and over...not sure why really.

You write I bought the DD because I wanted to save money over the KAC. That is not even close to what I wrote dude. How did you come up with that in that head of yours? The dream car example is another one, I left your choices wide open, yet you keep pigeon holing the choices to avoid the truth that you would take something more expensive than what you have for free. Anyone would. Your original point was garbage and you know it. Yet even when faced with that obvious truth you would rather fight tooth and nail on something that everyone else knows is a false statement, then admit you were wrong on it.

With that being said, I have come to the conclusion that this discussion is a waste of time when basic comprehension or manning up is lacking.

Rock on with your Aimpoints.

The real question is...when they come down in price to be more competitive because of competition...and they will...will you man up then or make another invalid excuse on why it happened?