lucid hd7

[ryanm]

Tirod,

I agree that this optic may have a niche in the market. I have never touched one so I can't comment on the quality. I can say that I would not feel comfortable with something like this until it is proven. It may end up being a great optic, but until there are quite few guys who have run it, beat it, dropped it, and shot it--then there is no way something like this should end up on a duty rifle.

It is not elitism to want something tried and true, it is simply that if your ass is on the line--you don't want to be the guy testing the waters. Yes, Eotech and Aimpoint can and do have failures, but compared to the abuse and use, the percentages are relatively small. They also tend to have a lot of people with experience running the optic and an understanding of what can and does go wrong along with how to rectify the situation.

Aimpoints earned a lot of respect because many of us have seen them take incredible abuse and continue to function.

[btam13]

I find it consistently disillusioning that when top tier optics users rate less pricey versions, they denigrate the product rather than say exactly why their expensive issue version is good at all.

There's plenty of info coming out of SWAsia to understand that Aimpoints, ACOG's, Eotechs, etc can and do fail under severe use. Most civilian users stateside, not being in the loop, are clueless about it. This isn't to say they are junk, but assuming a first line optic to be malfunction free shooting a few rounds a week and then keeping it stored 24/7 in a climate controlled closet isn't severe duty.

That other optics can serve the casual market just as well is looked down on as being "Airsoft" quality or worse. The attitude smacks of elitism, as if owning a high priced merchandise somehow equates to being able to actually use it more effectively than some Joe Blow.

As for the Lucid having cheap crap Chinese mounts, the comment invites a response that the observer doesn't know what they are looking at. The mount is unitized with the scope, which means only one set of clamp nuts, not two, plus no rings screws to fail in operation. The optic was designed to specifically fit the AR and co-witness in the most recommended position. It does that without extra loose nuts, bolts, screws, or problematic quick release levers, all of which contribute to a higher risk of failure. It co-witnesses to allow immediate use of sights, which the better optics also do.

While you can buy cheaper optics - Academy has the Millet RD00006 on sale today for $59 - it doesn't come with the appropriate height riser to work correctly. Add the costs of a mount and it's not competitive.

In regards to the so-called construction of expensive optics, note the high priced ones are under government contract first - discounting to the general public won't happen. Secondly, the price point at $600 is pretty steep for what you get - a couple of coated lenses, minor magnification if any, and a battery operated LED. It's less engineering than buying a monocular with an integrated flashlight. Most shooters won't buy a pair of binoculars for that kind of money - what's so incredibly better that a red dot would be that expensive with less than 1/3 the lenses and plain Jane collimation?

Think about it - it's not that complicated, there's no prisms, just lenses to look thru and a reflected light pattern to see. Not even fine wire crosshairs or an erector mechanism. Others might have that, it's old school tech, and the guns they are attached to do 2MOA as standard.

It's kind of sad to then state that a cheap chinese clone of an Aimpoint would then be better, with more mounts, screws, and an even lower price than the Lucid. At least the Lucid has it's own feature set, runs on an AAA, not a high priced lithium, and gets decent effective life from the battery, along with an auto off feature. Of the reviews I've read here and on weaponsevolution, the users were generally pleased with it. They don't plan on making it a backup optic on a .22, they plan on running thousands of rounds in it to find out what's up. That information will have far more impact than the smirks of those who simply can't be seen with anything less than perfect merchandise.

Outstanding observations! Before people discount the value of any optic, they may be well off purchasing one and running it through it's paces. At least then, when they start spouting off at the mouth at how crappy it is, their opinion will be based in first hand experience rather than the misled ramblings of those who believe that if it doesn't take your whole paycheck to purchase it must be crap. I believe that this optic has a very promising future and plan to purchase one for my primary AR. If it doesn't live up to the reviews I have read, oh well. At least I will be able to give an INFORMED opinion on it.

[tirod]

I own a Gen1 Aimpoint, and if I was still in and issued the current one, I certainly wouldn't complain. Then again, I would have no choice, either.

No doubt the current suppliers of optics keep the reliability high, it's not good to shoot oneself in the foot. What doesn't follow is that they are necessarily the best, or, the best application for a civilian shooter.

If the user isn't using the weapon daily in defense of his life, and chooses an optic that matches their budget, it's all good. The extra hundreds of dollars can go to other things that hold a higher priority in life. What comes out in many threads over the internet is a concept that only Tier One products can be used, and any one using lesser merchandise needs to recognize their appropriate social status as same. What's funny is that the reverse is what happens in the military. Lots of aspiring young men from the lower and middle classes use good quality products, equally. With a level playing field, ability becomes important, not who inherited more disposable income.

Words have meanings, denigrating terms such as "Airsoft quality" or "cheap Chinese Crap" are social putdowns, not a recommendation why the issue product is worth the extra bucks. If anything, as a taxpayer, we all should have a better understanding of what you get buying optics. I see a lot of marketing smoke and mirrors to support an expensive floor price. Mercedes Benz does exactly that to keep the less appropriate social classes from affording their products. It doesn't do to have the maid at your Beverly Hills home drive up in their own MB. It's old news prices were jacked 25% in the 80's to prevent that.

I have an issue with the government spec optics being so high. It doesn't help at all that Chinese clones can be sold for 75% less, it does raise questions. Again, it's not a complicated mechanism, a few coated lenses, an LED, a cast housing or extruded tube. There are better binoculars on the market for less, they have twice the lenses and more parts to precisely align.

A serious review of light transmission quality, construction, lens coatings, etc, the same as we get in some scope and binocular reviews, would go a long way in substantiating what is a quality optic and what's cheap junk. Baseless comments on social stratification don't really help justify a products worth.

As the market develops, the current optics issued will become another snapshot in time of the state of the art. My Gen1 Aimpoint has serious issues with weight, battery type, life, mounting, area of view, size, sight alignment, etc. It's the first of it's kind and a POS. Nobody clones it. Things have improved dramatically, to the point that optics priced with the same dollar value are far superior, even with inflation and country of origin included.

Just asking those new to the gun scene to reflect more on their standard of comparison - and what it includes.

[tirod]

It has been suggested on another forum that the Chinese factory that makes the Lucid also makes the Vortex and Bushnell red dots, along with components for EOTECH and AIMPOINT.

Other reviews point out that any optic that can have the reticle seen when viewed from the front isn't combat capable. Many lower priced red dots do that, and I've yet to see them claim they would be good for the application. These aren't combat optics.

I've also discovered that just because the military makes it a requirement doesn't mean it's appropriate for anyone else's use. A quad rail is ok to satisfy the institutional demands of a number of different services, but how many use or need a $300 KAC rail to mount 4 or 5 different accessories? Most handguard replacements now offer bolt on rails to lower the weight and make them more user friendly. Ladder guards are an indication rails aren't all that much fun.

Please lets keep a discussion of reliability based on Mean Rounds Between Failure rather than code phrases used to promote social stratification based on credit cards and tax refunds - which are currently financed by the Chinese.

The Japanese were at one time deemed quite incapable of making anything of quality, and while growing up, were usually spoken of in terms of being less than human. I suspect many of those who did so now enjoy their retirement viewing photos of their grandchildren taken with Japanese cameras, or video on a Japanese brand HDTV, or visit them driving their Japanese brand car.

Things change. Many of us don't have a real clue where the parts come from to make some of the statements we do.

[opmike]

It has been suggested on another forum that the Chinese factory that makes the Lucid also makes the Vortex and Bushnell red dots, along with components for EOTECH and AIMPOINT.

What components? Suggested by whom? What was their evidence?

I see no point in making a statement like this without any effort whatsoever to substantiate the claim.

We have enough urban legends, myths, old wives tales, etc., as it is in the world (a fact that irritates me to no end). I'm not saying the claim is incorrect, however, such things simply require evidence.

Also, I don't think you fully understand the amount of engineering that goes into building an optic. If the things are so simple, where are the multitudes of companies matching Aimpoint's brightness, battery life, and submersion ratings? And "high priced lithiums"? Are you implying that it's better for an optic to be using alkaline batteries? I'm not sure what to even say to that. And a pack of 4 lithium batteries is like 7 bucks.

[MassMark]

Because somehow, Aimpoint, Eotech and Trijicon have the magic fairy dust that makes their optics reliable for the HSLD elitists. Anything else is just 'Chinese junk'. They have cornered the market on circuit boards, LED's, glass and aluminum. Anyone running anything else is just a wannabe... [/sarcasm]

The reality is that sooner or later, someone is going to create an optic that can and will outperform Aimpoint, Eotech, Trijicon et al, without the stratospheric price tag...If it hasn't happened already with companies like Vortex and Lucid, it certainly will... Apparently however, competition is not a good thing....

Kind of reminds me of a buddy I had back in the 80's. He poured a ton of dough into a new Corvette only to get his doors blown off by a pickup truck, (Cyclone)... To justify all the money he spent on his Vette, he continually took the opportunity to call the Cyclones "cheap junk"...

[Neville]

Maybe the price reflects the cost of constant research and great quality control in SWEDEN (not China's sweatshops). ... hint, hint...

[ryanm]

This still does not address the issue of dependability or durability. Sure, the Chinese can make an inexpensive workable optic--that is not the issue. The issue is things that are designed to be as cheap as possible, are not usually designed to last or sustain heavy use/abuse. You can take a real blackberry and compare it to a Chinese copy--internally and externally--they appear identical--but the copy usually will not hold and eventually falls apart.

Arguing over how great something is before it is put through the paces or has proven itself is not a good place to start an informed debate. Until more people have them and run them, these will be looked down upon not because it isn't a good alternative, but because it has not been proven.

Track records, reputation and brand recognition are investments companies make through marketing as well as product engineering. Building the brand is critical to success in the market space and takes a focus across the entire company to be effective.

A good example of how a brand can affect whether or not a product suceeds is Laser Genetics--owned by BSA. I really thought that this product might be worth a look--until I found out it was owned by BSA. Now I don't care what I read, my experience and impression of BSA is that they make crap. No way am I going to pay a premium price for a re-branded product.

Look at Hyundai and Kia trying to compete directly with Japanese and European luxury brands. They sell a statistically competitive product, but most people that want something in that segment continue to chose the more expensive brands. In some cases, the Hyundai might actually be a better engineered, more reliable, better performing product--but they haven't proven that consistently over the years. They are working at building their brand and overcoming people's past experience as well as misconceptions with their current vehicles.

Here is the simple economic reality that I think is eluding this thread so far.

Building a high quality optic that meets the mil-spec standards is an incredibly expensive undertaking. Taking a new start-up and then having them roll out a product that can go head-to-head with aimpoint, trijicon and eotech is very hard to do. These companies are established and in many cases, now able to focus on running the business vs. trying to start one. They spent millions on R&D, patents, production capacity and marketing. All of these costs add up and are reflected in the price of the product at delivery. Now look at the fact that these companies are fullfilling large scale orders for various governments all over the world--they are reaping the benefits of their investment and there is an economy of scale.

Now enter a new startup company, someone would have to have invested millions to come up with a competitive product, then millions on the manufacture, marketing and distribution. How are you going to get a return on investment for a $150 optic? You have to cut corners and cater to an entirely different market segment.

The reality is that if someone does step up to try to build a milspec competitor, they will most likely have to be able to sell at a loss for years in order to build their brand. This is what Microsoft and Sony had to do with their game consoles. Build quality products and sell at a loss to try to gain market share. Unless you have an incredible amount of money behind you, your company won't last long.

This isn't fanboyism, these are the facts. It frustrates me to continue to read that HSLD gear is just a bunch of over-hyped marketing. I dare you to make a choice that involves picking up a rifle in Iraq or Afghanistan--and then throw a $150 optic on there. I double dare you. First you won't be allowed to run it if your mil, second, if your ass was really on the line--you aren't going to be thinking about how great it would be to prove that Chinese optic was a great bang for the buck.

Nut up or shut up.

[opmike]

The reality is that sooner or later, someone is going to create an optic that can and will outperform Aimpoint, Eotech, Trijicon et al, without the stratospheric price tag...If it hasn't happened already with companies like Vortex and Lucid, it certainly will... Apparently however, competition is not a good thing....

This reality is that such a thing simply not has happened. You're acting like people follow after these companies due to some arbitrary religious adherence. That is not the case.

People continue to recommend and use them because, as things stand currently, they are the only companies that offer what they do. That's it. I have no stake in Aimpoint. If something else comes along that meets or surpasses what I get with them, I'll decide between those two based on their specifications, real world performance, etc.

Reducing the position of adherents to essentially "fanboyism" is off base..

I must say that I also have no particular problem buying a Chinese product. I currently own an Aimpoint and a Primary Arms Microdot. I have a specific set of reasons why the Microdot resides on my .22 conversion, pistols, etc. and why my Aimpoint sits on my go-to carbine. And it's not because I'm a HSLD elitist.

[JSantoro]

The reality is that sooner or later, someone is going to create an optic that can and will outperform Aimpoint, Eotech, Trijicon et al, without the stratospheric price tag...If it hasn't happened already with companies like Vortex and Lucid, it certainly will... Apparently however, competition is not a good thing....

Utter horseshit, most specifically from an endurance standpoint. You would need to alter that sentence to read something like "...WITH a similar price tag, because they'll have altered manufacturing practices so that they match the aforementioned companies for quantifiable durability, etc., etc." They can come sorta close, that's for damned sure, but even then, they don't test those things to the kind of round count as those of the names currently utilized by gov't entities.

Is it possible to find something from one of the lesser-known mufacturer's that can take being on a carbine that gets 12k+ rounds through it in a year's time? Sure, possible, and it's great when it happens. America loves the underdog, and it's great for a company to come into its own and start being truly successful, as long as they've PLANNED for success and can keep up with demand without sacrificing QC. Doesn't tend to happen.

If you don't run a gun that hard, or have no viable requirement for somethig that is going to no-shit work as soon as you pick it up after a long period of disuse...don't get a top-name manufacturer. Be as happy as you feel you must about your purchase, but don't kid yourself into justifying smugness. You've merely traded one set of complications for another.

Most of the folks that squall about price are hemming and hawing about exactly that: price, and price alone.

Price is a one-time thing, what you're paying for X ting of Y date. Cost = price x time. Over a period of time, on a hard-use gun(s), you end up spending less, because the number of "price" iterations is generally less over a given timeline. Light to moderate firing schedule, you'll see different results and be more than reasonably justified in fretting more over price than you do cost, and you don't have to feel bad over having fallen into the ridiculously common trap of presuming that the two are the same thing. SOMEbody has to attend public schools, I guess.... You haven't gotten one over on The Man, haven't beaten the system, or have any reason to crow. All you've done is made your bed, so here's hoping it ends up comfortable for you.

tirod makes many salient points. MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) and all the other technical garbage...isn't garbage. If you don't have a need for a mil-type optic, don't get one if that will cost you money better spent on, say, ammo and training...hell, maybe food, if you're that tight.

When it comes to precision-made, tight-tolerance optics (please note the modifier, for those who need such pointed out to them because post-ingestion reading comprehension is lacking, which seems to be happening more and more, of late), the statement of "I can get just as good a performance out of (Cracker Jack Prize Brand Model 3a) than I can out of (Known-Good Military Field Expedient Milling Hammer/Optic Device) for half the money!"....sorry, I'm just going to come out and say it: that person is an idiot, or at the least, somebody who is Right, in their mind. They Believe, which therefore makes it info that might as well have come down off of Mt. Sinai on tablets. You cannot talk to that person, and they are only interested in talking for the sake of attempting to wash you in the blood of the lamb, too.

Don't get that blood on you. Take in the whole picture, not just the price tag and the fact that something looks just enough UNlike whatever brand it's knocking off to NOT get them sued. You may find something that does as well for that fraction of shekels, but if you do...get right down to the local convenience store and start buying scratchers, because you're frickin' magic.

Also bear in mind: ALL devices have their shortfalls, pecadillos, and quirks. The intangibles that can't be denoted on a spec sheet, but are quantifiable to a thinking end-user who knows how to note trends, even informally, and doesn't use phrases like "it has been suggested" as a quantifying, instead of qualifying, statement.

Knock this garbage off. If you have something to add about the OP's device, have at it, or ask him questions so you can get a better read on it. Pile the Less Filling/Tastes Great nonsense to No Big Toe or the Something Awful forums, ya buncha hens.