January 11th Aimpoint announcement

[Tokarev]

Same height as CompM5s.

Aha!

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Tanner]

If I were in the market for a new reasonably priced optic I'd buy this.

[1168]

Cloud Defensive, Modlight, and Malkoff offer lights that far surpass Surefire in terms of performance when measured in terms of candela to lumens. It's not even debatable. You could argue that Surefire still gets the nod for durability, something that they have built a reputation on for more than two decades. The others just don't have enough real world use, yet, to be able to say they're as durable. We can speculate that they are, which I'd say is probably pretty likely, but we still can't say for sure.

FWIW, Modlights are on issued rifles in use overseas. I know of two organizations that issue them, such as my own. You’re right that they’ve only seen limited use in comparison to a couple decades of widespread use of Surefires. I cannot yet say if they would meet whatever criteria exist for wider adoption, but they’ve proven themselves enough that I am personally fond of them.

I’d say Modlight vs Surefire is different than Holosun vs Aimpoint rifle optics. The Modlight offers a real advantage in performance, HS does not.

If not being able to see through the optic is better then why have the front lens at all? If that was even patented on single points that patent has long since expired. And it appears they may offer a clear front lens cover as well.

They both have their pros and cons. Black covers are more durable, possibly cheaper for the manufacturer, and are useful training aids when used to force a shooter to open their non-dominant eye.

Clear covers make good sacrificial lenses for when you get a glob of mud or snow on your optic, or are doing force on force training with marking projectiles. But, its not unusual for the clear portion to pop off, so for a LE agency or conventional military, the black cap has some things going for it. Then again, for a grab and go, always on optic, the clear lenses have their own appeal.

It’d be cool if Aimpoint gave us the option, like they probably do with large contracts.

[ST911]

he Modlight offers a real advantage in performance, HS does not.

Interested, say more?

[1168]

Interested, say more?

Comparing the most comparable products only:
The PLH has double the candela of the DF with roughly the same lumens. I would not attempt to claim that the PLH has inadequate spill, either.

Modlight IR lights have better output, although they lose the whitelight option that the Vamp has. Thats a hard choice. I wish I could have my cake and eat it, too. When Modlight and Cloud make genuine alternatives to the Vamps and TLR-VIR IIs, I’ll stand in line for one.

Modlight remote switches don’t limit power on high-output lights.


Less direct:
Modlight makes 3 heads and two bodies. All can use the rechargeable batteries that many prefer. Even if we decide that “dual-fuel” is important, Modlight has those, too. The heads are interchangeable across all rifle and handheld models. Of all the models Surefire makes, they have exactly one light that is competitive with any Modlight in reach. The other models Surefire makes are not even comparable in output. Surefire does not make a light that I am aware of that can be compared with the PLHV2 or the OKW in output.

I’m also told that “fully potted” is the future, but Surefire seems to have no lack of durability, so I dunno.



This is all just my opinion, and I’m not knocking Surefire. They still make great lights that are well proven. But dudes aren’t putting Modlights on their guns for the same reason people buy Holosun’s chinese Comp M, T2 and MRO ripoffs. Instead, they’re weighing the pros and cons and buying the light that they feel is best for their use, not “just as gud” at a lower price point. I’m not aware of any tangible advantage to HS rifle optics besides price. That’s all I’m saying. If we start talking pistol optics, we’ll have to move this discussion to Yoni’s thread, that I’ve been avoiding commenting in due to an internal conflict.

[ST911]

Comparing the most comparable products only:

Thanks, contemplating.

[Mysteryman]

It is being reported on TOS that this new optic uses the same emitter and lenses as the T2. This would seem to mean, to me at least, that the T2 and DRDS would have the same battery life, overall clarity, etc.

With this said, the info on TOS could be flat out wrong or only partially correct. Maybe "the same lenses" equates to the same raw glass but with less expensive coatings applied to keep costs down. Theoretically the less expensive coatings may not work as effectively and require different brightness settings to offer the same functionality.

Anyway, 2032 cells are relatively cheap. I can buy a bucket full of them for the difference in battery life vs the cost difference between the T2 and this.

The optic makes sense to me especially when optics like the Romeo4T have become quite popular. It was really only a matter of time before Aimpoint had to offer something in response.

The big unknown then is the optic height. Why would Aimpoint not use the legacy T-series height when the market is awash in mounts, spacers, co-witness magnifier mounts, etc? Unless a unique height was specifically required in a contract agreement this really doesn't make any sense. Seems like too obvious a boo-boo in the overall design to have not been done for a very good reason.

In any case, I have an optic on order from Strohman Enterprises. I am hoping to receive shipping confirmation soon and then have the optic sometime next week. I will post some photos--to include height compared to a T1--as soon as I can.

The optic makes sense to me especially when optics like the Romeo4T have become quite popular. It was really only a matter of time before Aimpoint had to offer something in response.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Think about it... Why the f*ck would any company setup a completely different production/assembly line for a lower priced product that mimics their existing higher priced product? They wouldn't. I'd wager a hefty sum of money that the glass and guts are the same as the T series. Same story for the ACRO C and P series. It makes no sense to assemble them differently/separately for the sole reason of offering 2 less NV settings and a reduced immersion rating. My bet, the settings are electronically limited and the immersion rating is exactly the same.

[Tokarev]

Think about it... Why the f*ck would any company setup a completely different production/assembly line for a lower priced product that mimics their existing higher priced product? They wouldn't. I'd wager a hefty sum of money that the glass and guts are the same as the T series. Same story for the ACRO C and P series. It makes no sense to assemble them differently/separately for the sole reason of offering 2 less NV settings and a reduced immersion rating. My bet, the settings are electronically limited and the immersion rating is exactly the same.

OK

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[grizzlyblake]

I want to buy one but it looks like only LE can buy them if I’m understanding correctly.

Sucks. I’m not a fan of gun companies doing the “Restricted Law Enforcement/ Military Only” Colt thing.

[jsbhike]

I want to buy one but it looks like only LE can buy them if I’m understanding correctly.

Sucks. I’m not a fan of gun companies doing the “Restricted Law Enforcement/ Military Only” Colt thing.

Looks that way to me and also not a fan, although less of a pisser than US companies doing it.

They did that with the PRO which(similar to mystery man's theory) I was always reasonably sure was a rebadged Comp 3.