|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 1:31:52 PM
THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 2:48:06 PM
compact acog
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 3:16:04 PM
How is that a clone? ![]() |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 3:23:42 PM
+1 don't buy chinese crap. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 3:31:35 PM
[Last Edit: 11/21/2005 3:39:00 PM by fight4yourrights]
Trjicon compact ACOG
If you want a cheap scope, buy a scope. Why do anyone want a ACOG copy, except if they wanted to be a POSEUR? BTW - who makes a the best SigArms P226 clone? I am using this as a plinker and a truck 4 wheeling gun, not a duty or heavy service use type. ![]() To my knowledge, all the ACOG clones are airsoft only |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 3:43:23 PM
similar to the full size acog at a cheaper price, best "clone" i would part my money for. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 4:00:52 PM
[Last Edit: 11/21/2005 4:02:28 PM by Eupfhoria]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt the IOR 3x25 CQB a kind of 'ACOG clone'?
Its 3x fixed power, illuminated reticle... not sure what else it's got in common. I realize that it is battery powered, not tritium, and therefore more prone to failure than an ACOG, but it also costs less ($650, last time I saw). What is the least expensive ACOG model? Just wondering because I've been thinking about getting one of these (IOR or ACOG) added a link: IOR 3x25 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 4:07:23 PM
No, totally different construction, adjustments, illumination system, look......... Designed for a similiar mission, obviously..... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 4:19:51 PM
i dont even see anything similar other than they are both optics? ![]() like my first post to this thread, compact acog would be the best clone. accept no subsitute and for the $650 for a battery powered optic like the ior i would try and find a compact acog or even a tao1 which will be in that price range and have a far better optic. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 4:21:54 PM
Friends don't let friends buy clones.
If you want a scope, buy a scope. Only reason for a "clone" is to "pose" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 6:00:15 PM
nice that I can get straight response ... I'm glad that I dont ask many questions around here .
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 6:08:09 PM
look onebay there is a ton of clones on there, some look pretty good for a clone though i have never bought one, soem have good reticles and are not plastic bodys. |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2005 11:12:06 PM
I buy what I can afford. A simmons 30mm red dot. It's spot on with a ar handle mount.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2005 12:21:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2005 12:44:48 AM
LOL! Does Norinco make a ACOG clone? BTW, F4YR, Norinco makes an 1911 .45 clone, a Remington 870 clone, an AK clone, an SKS clone, a...well, you get the idea. And guess what? They work. They are quite adept at the ancient art of reverse engineering. |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2005 2:06:52 AM
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2005 2:11:00 AM
ncstar made a copy and are going through a lawsuit
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2005 4:22:48 AM
Like other people said, either get a Compact ACOG or find a used Compact ACOG in good condition if you want quality ACOG clone.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2005 9:34:01 AM
[Last Edit: 11/24/2005 9:37:21 AM by Claven2]
Not entirely true. A factory in China (probably owned by Norinco which is not bound by copyright laws being in the PRC and all) makes the newer higher end ACOG clones. NcStar is being sued for contracting for a bunch of them, putting their logo one it, and selling it in the US. If ACOG could sue Chinese producers, they would. As would aimpoint and KAC and all the other AR parts makers who are being undercut by the Chinese. From what I've heard from a guy I know who has BEEN to the factory that makes the better Super Sniper clones, the ACOG clones and the Aimpoint clones, many of these products come into existence because the real makers contract all or part of the manufacture of the REAL items to the inexpensive labor markets in Asia. These makers then "steal" the production technology and run off a bunch of low cost versions to sell on the grey market (ie, e-bay and such places). If I were a betting man, I would bet the farm that the new Chicom ACOG clone gets it's glass from the same factory in the PRC that makes Hakko and NcStar. The housing and hardware is probably made from real grey market ACOG parts. As I understand it the TA-01NSN's are exact duplicates minus the tritium. I suspect this is because Tritium in the scope would make it much more difficult to get into the US through the mail as well as increases cost significantly. Since most of their target audience won;t care, they've omitted it. The one NSN ACOG copy I recently saw in-hand was indistinguishable from a real ACOG minus the logo. The pinions were even marked exactly identically. The glass might be slightly lower quality but I couldn't percieve the difference with my eye. In fact, if the makers put fake Trijicon markings on it, people would buy them here on the EE and never know they didn;t have the real thing. Seriously. I've not tested the clone on a gun as I don;t own one, but I'm convinced it would perform like the real thing. Resale value will likely be shit though, there will be no warranty and no tritium. Oh, and also no cool logo. As a last comment, the clone comes with (an exact copy of) the TA51 mount. If you want to do a carry handle mount you will have to get the attachment screw from Trijicon for $10. It'll spin right on the clone once you remove the "TA51". |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2005 10:04:49 AM
i have handled the fake nsn's and thought they were the decent but nothing close to the real deal and price was a bit high for a clone.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2005 10:25:45 AM
[Last Edit: 11/25/2005 1:45:26 PM by 96_Bravo]
I just picked up 2 of these for plinking optics for my father and I, they were just around 150 each I believe. They look like an exact dupe, minues the tritium of course. I'm planning on kicking the crap out of this thing over the next month and I'll let you guys know how it fares. Weight is about the same as the TA01s I've handled, and the glass is clear as well. The rubber coating isn't perfect, as there are some imperfections showing through (looks like a grain of sand under the coating) and is likely due to lower quality rubberizing processes or impure materials. The railmount is identical as well. Only real difference is that I've seen reddish seals around the adjustment caps, and this model uses black seals.
I'm sure it will work, but it's no ACOG by any stretch. I can post pics if anyone is interested. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2005 12:52:23 PM
This ought to be good, lets see them!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2005 12:57:39 PM
[Last Edit: 11/24/2005 12:58:14 PM by 96_Bravo]
That was unprovoked....I smell sarcasm from a mile away...or is that fish? |
||
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2005 1:14:14 PM
I know what you mean about the rubber - only I've seen that on REAL Acogs too!!! the seal is not biggie. Red vs. black - who cares? It's just synthetic rubber.
What I'd like ot see is someone like Photoman do an abuse test on one or for some enterprising individual to take a damaged ACOG and a clone and destructively disassemble both to see if they are, in fact, the same thing except sanitized of the logo. With both in hand, and if you ignore the logo and tritium differences, they LOOK THE SAME, weight the same, and feel the same. If they were different, Trijicon wouldn't be suing NCStar as you can't patent a shape or silouette. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2005 6:07:41 PM
Golan 'course, it's teh only 226 clone. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2005 6:12:03 PM
![]() |
|