User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/26/2005 12:31:02 PM EDT
[#1]
I think you answered your question with the thread title
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2005 3:00:04 PM EDT
[#2]
+1......piece o crap!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2005 4:30:31 PM EDT
[#3]
Airsoft?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2005 6:44:38 PM EDT
[#4]
I bought one from that seller, and it's very nice quality. Full steel, good glass, and everything is 100% like an acog without the tritium and the name on the side. I havent used it yet, but I'll give a review of the product soon.
We've seen that the aimpoint replicas are good for plinking and are generally well made, so I dont suspect this will be a total piece of crap. And no, this isn't for airsoft as far as I can tell... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2005 7:36:41 PM EDT
[#5]
Ok newbie, so you have just fondled this scope and never used it. How the heck can you tell it is 100% like an ACOG???  Now go try it live fire then come back and tell us if it holds up or a POS. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2005 7:38:54 PM EDT
[#6]
- CoC violation removed -
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2005 4:36:45 AM EDT
[#7]
Yeah, I agree, I shouldnt say it's 100% like a real ACOG. I'll let you know how it holds up to live fire over the next few months. Any suggestions on how to punish the scope as much as possible without damaging my rifle? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2005 5:57:10 AM EDT
[#8]
Immerse it in hot water, then place it in a freezer. Does it fog up? Shake it around. Did your zero change? Do what I did with my Arms #40: drop it on the floor sight first (that was an accident) Did the scope go black? What is this clone made of anyway? I have heard it has a rubber body, whereas the Trijicons I've fondled/looked through have been aluminum. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2005 5:58:23 AM EDT
[#9]
"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
Sorry but had to get my Robocop quote in sometime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2005 6:35:20 AM EDT
[#10]
Mount it up and use Blue Loc Tite on the threads. Zero it at the 50 and shoot it. If you dare, drop it a few times on the ground, and see if it holds the zero. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2005 10:26:28 AM EDT
[#11]
Ask Photoman about testing optics.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2005 12:10:50 PM EDT
[#12]
They are about as close to 100% as knockoffs get. They work just fine if you don't need the tritium. So what if they are not worth taking to the sandbox? You want to talk ripoffs? The Elcan knockoffs are a ripoff.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2005 12:48:40 PM EDT
[#13]
buy it and let us know how it holds up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2005 12:50:01 PM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2005 12:56:26 PM EDT
[#15]
Thanks for the ideas on how to beat it up...I'll let you know how it holds.
It is made of steel with a rubberized coating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2005 2:40:45 PM EDT
[#16]
i might get one if it had the fiber optic lighting but it dosent have that either
dose it????? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2005 3:23:00 PM EDT
[#17]
No, the TA01NSN doesn't either, just tritium. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2005 5:48:00 PM EDT
[#18]
I just picked one up as well. The sight is nice and hefty, optics clear and after 200 rounds held its grouping. I can't complain, especially about the price! With the savings, I built another M-4! I would recommend this as a great sight for anyone who would love a Trijicon but can't come up with the cash. Yeah, no tritium, but really, who on this list shoots that much in total darkness?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2005 6:26:29 PM EDT
[#19]
I don't know if they are specifically made for airsoft, but the local knife shop that has airsoft has these in stock?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2005 6:35:23 PM EDT
[#20]
How does yours mount onto your rail? I've checked with someone that has another rail and the screw rods are 2 1/8 inches apart on his Trijicon issue TA51 mount. Mine is also 2 1/8 apart, but will not mount level onto my DPMS flat top due to the 2 screw bars not fitting in between the slots in the flat top....not sure if this is a usual problem but the Clone mount is exactly the same as the real Trijicon mount...... Check yours, I didn't really notice it until I put it on....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2005 6:37:20 PM EDT
[#21]
I would like to know if the bullet drop reticle actually works.
If so that would be a hell of a deal. There are so many floating around that if you do a review it would be nice to state a brand. Losing tritium sucks but saving $400 is cool. now if only someone would copy the new Elcan 1-4power or the S&B short dot. <WOULDN"T THAT BE GREAT... I can afford (begrudgingly the Elcan but not the short dot). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2005 6:40:01 PM EDT
[#22]
I'd doubt that everything is 100% like an ACOG. I'd be real surprised if the glass on a $162.50 scope was anywhere near the same quality as an ACOG.
Barring that, you don't need to beat the scope to death to test it. The first thing I would do is see if the scope adjustments are both consistent and repeatable. Most cheap scopes will die at this test before you ever get to the harder stuff. Just sight the gun in and then move it 8 clicks up, shoot a group at 100yds, dial it 8 clicks left, shoot a group, dial it 8 clicks down, shoot a group, and then 8 clicks right. You should have a box about 2" square with the groups making the corner of the box. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2005 9:16:11 PM EDT
[#23]
It's a 4x!!! How much glass do you need for that? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2005 9:34:06 PM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2005 5:19:53 AM EDT
[#25]
I have two real ACOG scopes and the glass on those scopes is some of the clearest views I've seen on optics. I own primarily Nikon and Leupold magnified optics and the view through the ACOGs is at least as good, if not better.
I've tried a number of these cheaper optics and the glaring difference in all of them was the quality of the glass. To me, that is the difference I can't live without. 75% of the magnified optics I use get used for hunting, including the ACOGs. I need to be able to ID a buck at 100-200yds and verify I have a four on a side buck before I pull the trigger here in MI. Low quality glass doesn't give me that option much of the time. I buy optics for life. I buy optics once. I used to not be this way, but too many running bucks with huge racks changed my mind. 600yd plinking added to this also. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2005 7:27:40 AM EDT
[#26]
Hey nobody is saying you can't spend $162.50 on a knock-off if you determine it meets your needs. I am just stating the obvious - cheap glass in a rubberized steel housing is not the same as high-quality glass in a forged aluminium housing and suggesting that it is 100% like an ACOG is a pretty bad comparison. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2005 9:34:29 AM EDT
[#27]
Anyone know if these will fit in a A1 carry handle if the "rail mount" is removed?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2005 9:48:58 AM EDT
[#28]
Chinese made NCStar knock-off ACOGs for your AR15.
Absolutely top-notch!  Better than a $60 4X NC Star scope because.....................it looks like an ACOG?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2005 12:03:01 PM EDT
[#29]
"Better than a $60 4X NC Star scope because.....................it looks like an ACOG?"
I would guess the housing would be aluminum-- maybe not forged aluminum. If the reticle compensates for 62grain M855 drop to 600meters and ranges 18inch targets I'ld say it would be a lot better than the $60 Ncstar. Of course you must say the same thing about buying a Shepherd 3-10 vs a simmons Aetec 3-10. Why spend the extra money? Because you raise your effective range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2005 12:55:52 PM EDT
[#30]
without endorsing these, I think you could only call it an "ACOG Ripoff" if they were advertised as being ACOGs
They aren't You know exactly what they are, and what you are buying as silly as it sounds, I suppose there is a fair sized market for AR owners that do not have a grand to drop on a real Trijicon, but want the general look and function (OK function part is a stretch) for under $200 and mounts like his will hold up just fine in a range setting, and do not need to be milled to exacting tolerances as pros and serious enthusiasts expect and demand. I do not want one. I do not recommend them. But I suppose he will sell a fair amount of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2005 1:19:45 PM EDT
[#31]
--Another CoC violation removed--
edited by Department of Precrime |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2005 4:50:51 PM EDT
[#32]
Actually I have a Simmons 6X, not a bad scope for the price. Paid about $29 new from CDNN. I have also had NC Star and Leapers optics. My experience - absolute crap and a waste of money. Your results may vary. Simmons is very mediocre but still far better than NCStar in my experience. I would like to try the Shepherd scope, does it work as well as they advertise for range estimation? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2005 4:51:35 PM EDT
[#33]
"as silly as it sounds, I suppose there is a fair sized market for AR owners that do not have a grand to drop on a real Trijicon, but want the general look and function (OK function part is a stretch) for under $200
and mounts like his will hold up just fine in a range setting, and do not need to be milled to exacting tolerances as pros and serious enthusiasts expect and demand. I do not want one. I do not recommend them. But I suppose he will sell a fair amount of them." I don't think function for $168 dollars on an imported item is really a strech at all. Look at the 4 power 32mm obj tasco pronghorn for $20 It's pretty much one of the best .22 rimfire scopes on the market for rabbit hunting. Here we are talking about eight times that. I think it is way too easy to forget that companies like Trijicon are selling at 3 to four times actual cost. You have to be realistic-- a fixed probably true 3 power scope for nearly $1000? At prices like that Colt should re-introduce the realist 4 power with 62 and 77 grain cams for it's $275 price. I stopped drinking trijicon punch and went to leupold. They turn out a more advanced product for less money. I think the real point isn't wether people have the $1000 but wether they want to waste it on something worth $450. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2005 6:38:15 PM EDT
[#34]
Nicely said. Now how about the performance and review of this vs other 4 x scopes on the market rather than another debate of price vs quality. I have seen some very nice scopes from Japan lately(Nikon to name one), lets get an objective review rather than speculations on this please. God knows, everyone has already bashed on Mueller without ever seeing the product for themselves already in another thread. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2005 7:08:18 PM EDT
[#35]
This isn't a rubberized housing. It's an aluminum alloy forging, machined just like the ACOG. Mounts perfectly to my flat top and groups great! No problems here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2005 8:02:11 PM EDT
[#36]
A(CL)OG Review 1.0
I was only at a 25 yard range but I mounted it (not fitting perfect between the rail spaces, I need to shave a few micrometers off the front screw post to get it level, but it's secure) I sighted it up and was putting down very nice groups of around 1cm. Mind you, I didn't have anything to rest this on, so I was using my elbow as a bench. I'd say I performed much worse than the scope at this point. Then I took the clone off, shot my Aimpoint clone which wasnt zeroing easily (the mount came loose and I didnt realize it, duh), and then remounted the clone. I put 20 rounds within 3cm at rapid fire (elbow rest) and within 5cm or so standing...all dead center at 25 yards. (pics to follow) As far as I can tell, this has served it's purpose for me. 1) didn't break when I first used it. 2) zeroed with ease 3) Assisted in a nice grouping 4) held zero after removing and reinstalling 5) didn't cost more than my rifle 6) Looks good, but not an ACOG To me, putting a $1100 scope on a $700 rifle isn't my cup of tea. I appreciate everyone that specializes their gear and has all the best stuff, but for me, I just wanted something that looks great, shoots good, and wont break the bank. I do not claim my scope to be an ACOG, and when I was asked at the range I pointed out that it was a knock-off. A damn good knock-off, but not an ACOG. I cannot attest to the glass quality, but it was clear in darkness and bright light for me. Eye releive was rather short though, to get a perfect focus I was pretty close and the recoil did get me in the shooting glasses once. As Mongo said, at 600 yards it's a no go, but then again, it's 4x...so I'd just scare the shiznit out of the deer anyway. :) If someone wants to send me another cheapie 4x, I'll do a comparison :) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2005 6:55:39 AM EDT
[#37]
A(CL)OG...brilliant!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2005 7:16:45 AM EDT
[#38]
Pictures of links where we can see some specs?
Thanks for the review... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2005 8:21:29 AM EDT
[#39]
Please more pics links and tests. I would love an ACOG but paying for 2 college educations is kicking the shit out of my play money. I do still want to play so this might fit the bill until I get to SPEND MY MONEY AGAIN!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2005 8:38:17 AM EDT
[#40]
Cheaper.
Yeah, that's what I thought too. Well now all those NC Star and and Leapers optics are where ever the contents of the range trash cans are dumped. After they would not hold zero for shit or the cross hairs started migrating they were promptly shitcanned. Cheaper? Not when you have to buy the quality stuff after you wasted your money on crap that does not last. Not by my math. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2005 9:41:07 AM EDT
[#41]
The sight will last.
The real important point is wether it is a fancy 4 power or the reticle actually works for bullet drop and ranging with 62 grain ammo. You need to try something out and get back to us (if you have a place to shoot long range mount 18inch wide targets at even onehundred meter increments to 600 and see if they range and compensate correctly to get hits using the reticle.) I wouldn't gig the focus too hard I've had three acogs and not one has a perfect zero at 25meters--that is a functionof the fact that the scope is a fixed focus system-- no parralax and the focus is a compromise to get the scope to work at 600m and 25m |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2005 10:19:31 AM EDT
[#42]
And you know this because? If this sight is indeed made by NC-Star, I have seen a few of their 4x scopes fail or not hold zero's at the range. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2005 11:09:35 AM EDT
[#43]
Definitely not made in the US. NO US company would make such a blatant copyright infringement. Even Hakko stopped making the Aimpoiont clone when Aimpoint told them to stop or be sued. They did. China, Korea, Malaysia most likely. Of course they wont tell you who really made it. That's enough to not buy it right there. A "no-name" ACOG "replica" on ebay for $178$ with no warranty? No thanks. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2005 11:41:35 AM EDT
[#44]
Well, let's look at what you get for $162.50 or so... you get a 4x scope that looks like an ACOG of dubious heritage with no tritium and ranging marks that may or may not work. According to one owner here, the body is rubberized steel. According to a different owner, it is forged aluminium.
Now for $179 you can buy a variable Leupold or Weaver shotgun scope in 1-4x. These are rugged (designed to mount on a shotgun or muzzleloader). These are well-known brands. They will do everything the FakeCOG will except range (assuming the range marks are accurate and you can actually make out distant targets with the glass in the FakeCOG). Not only that; but it is variable with a thick duplex reticle as well so you can actually run it at 1.5x for close work unlike a 4x non-tritium ACOG with a fine reticle. I can't speak to the Weaver; but the Leupold does have glass that will allow you to identify targets out to 500yds and with the 1MOA adjustments, you can dial it in pretty quick as well, so even though it doesn't range like an ACOG reticle, it can be used on targets at a distance. About the only thing against the cheap shotgun scopes is that they don't have the CDI factor of the FakeCOG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2005 11:43:52 AM EDT
[#45]
"And you know this because"
My brother and I have run Airsoft aimpoints (which is what this is an airsoft sight) thousands of rounds on .556 M4s and 9mm subguns. No zero loss- failures or other issues on four aimpoint copies of two brands. They take the use. They are basically close copies as that is what makes these guys the money. They can't own guns over there so they come as close as they can to owning the real thing in their sport. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2005 11:48:58 AM EDT
[#46]
"Well, let's look at what you get for $162.50 or so... you get a 4x scope that looks like an ACOG of dubious heritage with no tritium and ranging marks that may or may not work. According to one owner here, the body is rubberized steel. According to a different owner, it is forged aluminium."
That's why we have forums-- someone can test the sight and tell the rest of us wether the range marks work or not. There are many of these on the market from many different sources that's why brand names are important in reviews Such testing and evaluation keeps people like me and you from having [should we wish to] to invest and do our own testing to discover through trial and error what works and what doesn't. The end product is that we accomplish two things; 1 we give the guys with less money a chance to enjoy their firearms, and 2 we might just convince the Trijicon people to lower a price or do something really crazy and actually make the ACOG a 1-4power variable and create a new need for their sight. At present I prefer and use a Leupold M3MRT and M2 MRT in the places where my ACOGs used to sit. As far as I am concerned the ACOG is an inferior good. I don't like to use inferior goods when I have the money not to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2005 4:31:15 PM EDT
[#47]
You know what's funny?
I just got off the phone with my brother who is in Iraq and he is sending home "his Acog" I sold it to him a long time ago-- I asked him, "crazy question, but did you ever pay me for that?" "No." I guess I am the owner of an ACOG TA O1 NSN again... A year and a half later. Funny how that stuff works out when you had forgotten all about it. He is using an EO-tech with GG&G accucam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2005 6:07:57 PM EDT
[#48]
I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2005 1:24:03 PM EDT
[#49]
Yeah-- I've used the ACOG-- I find a variable like the Leupold M2 is easier to use.
For that matter the M3 MRT at 3 power is easier to use than the ACOG-- ACOG's have very selective eye relief meaning that if you have to pull on a target quick you may or may not be seeing that target when you have to pull the trigger with the ACOG. I think all combat optics should have very generous eye relief-- by that I mean a good zone that allows you to see through the scope-- not one small place. I have done a considerable amount of night work with the leupolds and they work alright for low light work- 90% of the time I don't need to use the illuminated reticle. That is why a 1-3 or 1-4 ACOG would be so valuable-- at one power the ACOG would be a reflex sight meaning the eye relief would have to be a non-issue |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2005 5:28:59 AM EDT
[#50]
Do any of the owners of the copy know if it will mount on an A1 carry handle?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
