I am looking for some clarification on technical specifications that Aimpoint has put out for the Aimpoint 3XMag magnifying module. (Art.No: 11324).

Aimpoint previously made claims that this product was Submersible to 20 m (67 ft).  Now Aimpoint states that it is only Submersible to a Depth of 1 m (3 ft.)

Aimpoint also previously made claims that this product had a 7 degree Field Of View.  Now Aimpoint states that it only has a 5 degree Field Of View.

Does anyone have some clarification on these discrepancies?

Here is a link to Aimpoint's original technical specifications for the product - http://jollyroger666.narod.ru/pricely/Aimpoint/3XMag.pdf

Here is a link to Aimpoint's new modified technical specifications for the same product - http://us.aimpoint.com/product/aimpoint-3xmag/


The tech specs seemed to have changed around the release of the new AIMPOINT® 3XMAG-1.  Did they alter the specs to make the newer 3x mag appear to be more of an improvement than it really was?  Or did Aimpoint realize that their product could not actually perform the way they had claimed it could for years?  (And if the latter is the case, then will Aimpoint do anything to compensate the customers who spent hundreds of dollars for a product that they trusted to perform up to the originally advertised specifications?)

Well I can tell you the difference in waterms resistance is probably testing methodology.

If you put an object in water and increase pressure to 3 BAR, you just simulated 20m depth. It only takes seconds to do this in a pressure vessel. You pull it out and guess what? No water intrusion. It resists 20m pressure depth. Even if just for a second or two you can make that claim.

Now let's look at an IP standard test. First number is dust protection, second number water resistance. An IP67 is means, 7, 1m from bottom of unit is surface of water. It must sit there for a minimum of 30 MINUTES. This is a far cry from 30 seconds getting to 3 BAR / ATM. To get IP68 you would need 3m or more for 30 minutes., then claim your depth. So, to get IP68 20m you would have to test a 30 minute test, not a few seconds. Big difference. IP67 generally designates a dust/water proof item, suitable for rain, splashes, or accidental immersion in water, river crossing, etc. but not sone thing you would take 20 feet or more under water with a rebreather and swim in from the horizon unprotected. Weapons go in a bag for protection from tidal silt in those instances anyway. It's easy to do a pressure vessel test and release the product then use IP67 stats once that testing is done.

As for FOV... I have an early Aimpoint magnifier. It has horrible glass quality with a brown tint you find in glass from low end optics that don't spend the money on cleaner optical glass. I'd take cleaner glass with less FOV any day.  I hope they reduced FOV on purpose to extend eye relief and changed from my early brown glass. If that's the case or not I don't know, but a Vortex 3x magnifier is noticable in how much better the glass is at a fraction of the cost.

I appreciate your theory, however, since aimpoint refuses to respond on the subject, (I have attempted to contact them outside of this forum) it remains only a theory.  Even if what you said is true, it seems less than honest.  

The fact that aimpoint, who I always read had great customer service, has refused to respond to me, makes me feel like they did lie, which, as a consumer, makes me lose some faith in the company and question whether I should invest hundreds of dollars into future products of theirs, only to later find out that their product can not perform anywhere near as well as they said it could.  Their customer service has been non-existant.  So not only are they selling products which can not perform even close to the standards they claimed, if you have an issue because of it, they will not be there to help.  ...Very disappointed in aimpoint right now.

I can only think of 3 possible scenarios.

1-What DevL said. (Which is a good theory)

2- They now cut corners on manufacturing of the old magnifier to make it worse on paper than the new magnifier (that's assuming they still make the old one?)

3- Aimpoint straight up lied.

If they still make the old magnifier, if say 1 or 2 seems most likely. If they don't, i think DevL's theory is most likely. If they did lie to get SOF contracts with the old mag, I suppose its possible they waited until the new one came out to save face before somebody ACTUALLY tested the max depth performance on the old magnifier.

I think without somebody testing it or a person on the inside all we can do is guess. But I can tell you if they did lie, they aren't going to admit it over a customer inquiry.

The manual provided with the magnifier still states 20 meters immersion capability.  The only place that states 1m is the spec sheet, and it could just be a typo.

Both the spec sheet and owners manual are pretty clear in respect to field of view.  It indicates that field of view is 7 degrees if mounted between 60-65mm of eye relief.  If you mount it anywhere else from 40 to 90mm of eye relief, you will experience a 5 degree field of view.  The old spec just stated 7 degrees.  If anything, they were "lying" back then by not telling you it had to mounted to a very specific eye relief to get the full 7 degrees.

I don't know of anyone that takes their rifle for a 20 meter dive, much less a 1 meter swim, before they hit the range.

Funny how we have a bunch of new joins/low post counts bashing Aimpoint all of a sudden.

Ill admit this topic is a stretch. But considering OP's and dopushups' join dates vs yours, this comment is a lot confusing.

 no kidding. 

It's the Russians.

They also claim to have no thermal drift or parallax.

Grain of salt. Get hands-on with an optic before you invest. Period. Nevermind YouTube, spec sheets, or what some rockstar NSW guy has to say about it. You go and pick one up (preferably on a gun, and shoot with it!) and look at it before you buy it. Or you risk serious sad-panda situations.