I'm dissapointed to see you guys give 1/2 page to Sun Optics. The CD13-TRT30GD is a blatant copy of the Trijicon ACOG and infringes on the Trademark. Is SWAT really going to start giving air time to chinese copies??
Realistically, it was a paragraph not half a page. Also, there was a huge write up by Leroy Thompson on 2 Trijicon ACOGS in the issue as well. As a true fan of Trijicon products and owner of many of them, I'd say that those who know the difference will know that a $130 "copy" of a Trijicon ACOG is certainly not an ACOG. Not even close. I tend to agree with you from the standpoint that no one desiring true quality and reliability would purchase this optic (Sun) for a fighting rifle. To each his own.
Originally Posted By mcnielsen:
Realistically, it was a paragraph not half a page. Also, there was a huge write up by Leroy Thompson on 2 Trijicon ACOGS in the issue as well. As a true fan of Trijicon products and owner of many of them, I'd say that those who know the difference will know that a $130 "copy" of a Trijicon ACOG is certainly not an ACOG. Not even close. I tend to agree with you from the standpoint that no one desiring true quality and reliability would purchase this optic (Sun) for a fighting rifle. To each his own.
I have no issue with budget optics, my issue is with those that directly violate trademarks and cannot legally be sold. It just happened to be a Trijicon, I'd be just as upset with an Aimpoint clone etc.
Did you make the magazine aware of your trademark concerns before publication? I would blame the manufacturer of the allegedly offending product and not the magazine otherwise.
