Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/29/2005 6:17:27 AM EDT
I have an Aimpoint CompC, I think, and I got it and a ARMS Swan Sleeve #38-EX off of eBay for $350. It's a great sight, but I have always thought that the fact that it didn't have any magnification was disappointing. I have considered selling it every once in a while and buying an ACOG or the like, but the great price I got on it and the expensive prices of an ACOG have always kept me from doing so.

So, now this magnification optic built specifically for my Aimpoint comes out and the thing seems to work fantastic. With a twist off mount or a flip to the side mount available, it could make my Aimpoint extremely versatile. But at a price of more than $450!

I just can't justify paying that much for it. Does anyone think there is a hope of it coming down in price anytime soon? I would pay $200-250 for it. Anything else and it comes in too close to the price of an ACOG and then I think I would be better just having an all-in-one optic.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 6:51:18 AM EDT
Yes, I think it's too expensive...for me, at this point in time.

Quality costs...but how can you determine if it's quality enough to warrant the price tag, or they're just selling it at an arbitrarily high price because it's the only one you can buy? Who the hell knows lol.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 10:38:24 AM EDT
I think the price is pretty steep, especially when you add the price of the mount in with it. By that time, you've got an ACOG, all in one package.
Having said that, I'll probably still but one.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 1:54:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 1:56:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 2:00:45 PM EDT
I'm done with fancy expensive optics and the ridiculously high-priced mounts.

<­BR>





For now.


No seriously, I think the magnifier is worth 250-300 bucks. That's what I would be willing to pay.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 2:23:05 PM EDT
I feel the exact same way. When you add up the price, you could get an ACOG, then you realize you are contemplating putting $1000 down for an optic, and sigh in frustration that you can't afford the cool toys you want. <sigh>
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 2:37:31 PM EDT
It is dang expensive, so was my TA31 and TA31F, Nightforce NSX, the Aimpoint M3 2MOA to go with the magnifier, my Leupolds, the ARMS and Leupold and LT and Samson mounts, and so forth.
Heck, only the PK-A for my Norinco was reasonably priced, but it's no Aimpoint.
The good sh-t costs, that'll never change.

However, it is worth mentioning that the 3X Magnifier can be used on other rifles with Eotech or Aimpoints with no adjustments required, just put it on and fire away. Tactically speaking, that is an advantage.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 3:34:38 PM EDT
For what it is, I think it's really expensive.

A monocular with a longer eye relief and rubber coating......for over $400?

Yikes!

$200 would be more doable, but still a little expensive for what you get.

All the above is my personal opinion. No flames intended or needed.

WIZZO
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 4:20:29 PM EDT
im thinking of actually selling my eotech to get an acog. because with the price of the magnifier and mount, it costs more than an acog. and i like an acog better.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 4:35:33 PM EDT
And then you have to factor in the cost of up-grading to either the M3 or ML3 in order to make it all worth while!
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 5:01:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By m24shooter:
I think the price is pretty steep, especially when you add the price of the mount in with it. By that time, you've got an ACOG, all in one package.

An Aimpoint w/magnifier is not equal to a TA-31 and vice versa. I speak from experience. I own both set-ups and would not want to part with either. They each have their pros and cons.

The Aimpoint set-up is more versatile. The battery powered dot solves the dark reticule problem that can occur when using the ACOG in some lighting conditions. The Aimpoint without magnifier is faster for most folks to use (myself included) in CQB range. The Aimpoint with magnifier has about an inch more eye relief than the TA-31. Without the magnifier, eye relief is of course not an issue and a consistent cheekweld is not as critical as it with the TA-31.

The TA-31 doesn't require batteries which means there are no batteries to fail at the worst possible time. The glass on the TA-31 is much clearer than the Aimpoint (even when both wear ARDs). The dot on the TA-31 is defined so the dot itself can be used for BDC and the reticule incorporates BDC. The TA-31 has no moving parts (save the W/E knobs which are not exposed) whereas the Aimpoint has a brightness control which can be snapped off if dropped (it happens).
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 5:05:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AKM:
And then you have to factor in the cost of up-grading to either the M3 or ML3 in order to make it all worth while!

It is not in the least bit necessary to upgrade to an M3 or ML3 to gain the benefits of the magnifier. As you may or may not know, the Aimpoint "3" series are available with 2 or 4 moa dots. I've got a couple of M2s and an M3. I find the dot on the M3 to be more "round" and defined when compared to the 4 moa dot on M2. Within the common max range (300 yds) of an AR, a 4 moa dot will work fine with the magnifier.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 5:10:19 PM EDT
I've got the whole package for sale in the EE NIB Magnifier with a LaRue PVS14 mount for under $600. I will seperate. Its a great product, but I've got other commitments.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 5:13:57 PM EDT
I am considering trying and alternative to the 3x magnifier. I have an original Colt 3x20 BDC scope. I have held that by hand behind my Aimpoint and any scope will sight through an Aimpoint but this Colt scope is fairly compact. In front of the top turret/BDC knob, there is nearly 1.5 inches of 35mm diameter tube. TPS makes 35mm rings. I am thinking two of these rings of the right height atop an ARMS #17 short 1913 rail will give me quick detach 3x power optic behind the Aimpoint. Yes there is a duplex style reticle in the scope....but we'll see when I get the money for the mounts. I haven't used the scope in years. If it holds zero it'll be fine for daylight and the aimpoint's dot for low light..Maybe

I do not know of any extended eye relief monoculars to try.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 5:26:57 PM EDT
Unless I get a great deal on a used one, I will just get an ACOG. Hell, I probably will anyway....
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 5:38:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Matt_B:

Originally Posted By AKM:
And then you have to factor in the cost of up-grading to either the M3 or ML3 in order to make it all worth while!

It is not in the least bit necessary to upgrade to an M3 or ML3 to gain the benefits of the magnifier. As you may or may not know, the Aimpoint "3" series are available with 2 or 4 moa dots. I've got a couple of M2s and an M3. I find the dot on the M3 to be more "round" and defined when compared to the 4 moa dot on M2. Within the common max range (300 yds) of an AR, a 4 moa dot will work fine with the magnifier.



Did I say it would not work? I think not.

If you're going to spend that kind of coin then why not do it right!

IMO a 4moa dot coupled with a 3X optic is just a bit too large for even semi-precision shooting.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 6:08:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AKM:
IMO a 4moa dot coupled with a 3X optic is just a bit too large for even semi-precision shooting.

You are of course entitled to your opinion but a 4 MOA dot is sufficient for the range and accuracy of a regular (combat) AR with mil-spec ammo. Consider the fact that the reticule for the TA-31 is 4 MOA and that an Aimpoint without magnification is fine for 300 yds or less.

You did not explicitly state that an M2/ML2 would not work with the magnifier but you did insiniuate that it is necessary to purchase an M3/ML3 if you are going to use the magnifier. My point was to clearly illustrate to anyone reading this thread that either series of Aimpoint will work fine with the magnifier. If Aimpoint had designed the magnifier to only be used with a 2 MOA dot then they would have specifically stated that.

It is completely acceptable to have a your preference but it is also important to clearly explain why you have said preference.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 6:27:14 PM EDT
I like the Aimpoint 3X setup, but I would have hoped for a bit more clarity for that kind of cash. I think I could have stomached the price for something that's almost as clear as an ACOG. The M3 and 3X is actually pretty light when compared to a S&B Short Dot and LaRue SPR-E. That, and the battery life is way better... I only wish the optics were more clear. Then it would be a REALLY nice setup.

I'm holding onto a M3-2MOA to use with a 3X, but it won't be until I get a Form 1 back for my CQBR... And I still might end up using something else.

-Cap'n
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 6:23:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Capn_Crunch:
I like the Aimpoint 3X setup, but I would have hoped for a bit more clarity for that kind of cash. I think I could have stomached the price for something that's almost as clear as an ACOG.

I feel the diminished clarity is due to having to look through 4 pieces of glass and the Aimpoint has an ever-so-slight blueish tint to it to begin with. In my case, I only worsen the situation by having an ARD on my Aimpoint. The TA-31 with an ARD is still noticeably clearer than the Aimpoint.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 8:21:54 AM EDT

I usually buy everything, so its absence from my kit must indicate I consider it way over priced.

If I were going to war I would pay the at war prices and get one, but being at home at the moment, inflated war prices don’t appeal to me. I’ve already paid enough inflated war on terror prices on other equipment to hold me over until this one is over.

I think most of arfcom agrees with me. Most new gear, especially a step forward from Aimpoint, would cause a major upgrade among arfcomers. Instead only a few here have bought them (or they are keeping it a secret). That tells me I’m not alone in thinking it’s way overpriced.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 9:33:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Robert2011:

If I were going to war I would pay the at war prices and get one,



Well, I'll agree with that much.

But for a short and medium range optic setup, especially if used with the QF mount, it strikes me as the best setup there is, period, and a perfect match to the .556 platform.

I really like my TA31, I shot about 300 rounds this morning with my 14.5" A2, mostly at 100 yards. Pretty much semi-rapid fire (30 rounds in about 40 seconds) with Q3131A into a 4" circle using the top of the donut as my aiming point, concrete bench or floor, bipod, or mag as a monopod, and the new (for me) Dieter grip really really helps you use the mag as a monopod.

But if I was going to combat, I'd take the Aimpoint/Magnifier/QF setup for sure.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 1:12:25 PM EDT
It IS too expensive, and it doesn't work very well IMO. (Shitty FOV, dims the view, and not very clear).

I'd rather have an ACOG on a QD mount to put in my range bag or in a MOLLE pouch to replace the EOTECH for longer range shots.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 3:28:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
it doesn't work very well
(Shitty FOV, dims the view, and not very clear).



Wow, amazing that I even hit the target with it.

Maybe...............I should've bought an Eotech.

I guess each has it's rabid fans, like the camera boards.

Actually, even compared to my other optics, I'm pretty pleased with it.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 3:39:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 3:48:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
It IS too expensive, and it doesn't work very well IMO. (Shitty FOV, dims the view, and not very clear). Whether or not it is too expensive is a personal decision of which there is no debate. However, regarding the FOV, I have to disagree if you compare the Aimpoint magnifier to both a TA-31 and TA-11.

The Aimpoint magnifier has a 7 degree FOV, the TA-11's is 5.5 degrees and the TA-31's is 7 degrees. Based upon the facts, the Aimpoint Magnifier's FOV is a little worse the TA-31 and roughly 20% better than the TA-11.

I'd rather have an ACOG on a QD mount to put in my range bag or in a MOLLE pouch to replace the EOTECH for longer range shots.

If that works for you, more power to you. However, I would think that putting on one optic is going to be quicker than taking one off and putting one on.

As I stated earlier, comparing the Aimpoint magnifier combo to an ACOG is like comparing apples to oranges. Each set-up has pros and cons.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 4:55:08 PM EDT
i have had the dilemma of trying to figure out whether or not I wanted the magnifier or an ACOG. I decided to leave my eotech on my carbine for my home defense weapon and then just buy another rifle and put an acog on it for longer ranges. At least that way my dollars actually pay for products that are worth something.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 9:06:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/30/2005 9:08:50 PM EDT by Ridley]
There is no doubt the magnifyer is WAY over priced. Seriously, WHY would you buy the magnifyer unless you were actually going to go to the sandbox or actually used your rifle for combat/LE situations. For most of us couch comandos where our targets don't shoot back, we really have to sit and think about WHY we would want this. Maybe it's to look cool, or have the newest thing out, and thats fine, to each their own. But for me personally, there's no way I would spend 500$+ on a 3x magnifyer when i can get a REAL scope that has REAL prescision far superior to a 3x monocular for less $$$. Speed you say? Bottom line is, if you have to use your weapon in a self defense situation, ALL you need or want is a simple aimpoint or eotech with no mag at all because it WILL be at close range, or else you'll have a hard sell to the jury it wasn't murder. If your like me, and like to use your AR for hunting, you can get a decent scope and a reapeatable QD mount set for it, and simply mount it in place of the eotech/aimpoint, and have a much better settup for precision, for less than the simple mag costs. Even in a SHTF scenario, an unmagnified optic is plenty suficient for any distance that you would even remotely need to consider engaging any target, or for that matter any distance that your ammo will more than likely do it's job sufficiently. Personally, i'll continue to use my eotech as the full time optic on my AR, and take the extra whopping 1 minute or so to throw a 3-9x nikon on there when i want to use it for hunting or more prescision shooting. Or eventually build another AR strictly for prescision(hell, for the price of the 3x mag and a decent mount you can damn near build another complete AR).

For a couple hundred bucks, the 3x mag might be a worthwhile toy, but more than that for it's limited real world uses and it's a waste IMO. Maybe if eotech's magnifyer combo works a little better, and is somewhat reasonably priced, I'll give it a shot, but there aint no way in hell I'm shelling out a grand for a half ass result. Either buy two optics designed for their specific jobs and that do it RIGHT, or buy an Acog, and learn how to compensate for it's CQB weaknesses.

I guess the bottom line to my ramblings is there are more than likely better alternatives for the vast majority of shooters. IMO, the aimpoint/3x is best suited for military/LE and serious shooting competitions sch as 3 gun. For the rest of us, we are better off with an Acog or two separate optics designed for 2 different jobs, at least until we see the new eotech settup and it's price point.

Link Posted: 8/31/2005 3:31:55 PM EDT
I bet those magnifiers might come in real handy for some couch potatoes in New Orleans, Biloxi, and Mobile Bay. Don't see much of a police deterrent there.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 3:33:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 3:34:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 5:22:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By new-arguy:
I also think it is a lot for what it is, but Aimpoint is the only one to have produced one that works. EoTech has been working on theirs for some time now, but still nothing. People have been racking their brains trying to figure out how to rig a cheap monocular and achieve the same thing. But so far there's nothing that comes close to working. If you want what this offers, you pay the price. Same is true of the ACOG...



Not expensive if your can span it accross several weapon systems. With three of my weapons systems that utilize the magnifier, that's $133 a pop. Yeah Good!

As for the EOTech system (which has yet been releases) why bother? No backwards compatibility with their own previous units, what did they happen to forget their established customer base?

Oh, for shits and giggles, anyone bother to try the magnifier with a low power scout scope? Gives a whole new meaning scout M1As and 16" SOCOMs.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 7:59:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2005 8:03:38 PM EDT by DevL]
Its a $400 3X scope. Thats not THAT crazy. You guys act like a $400 scope is super expensive or something.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 8:25:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 11:12:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By m24shooter:
I bet those magnifiers might come in real handy for some couch potatoes in New Orleans, Biloxi, and Mobile Bay. Don't see much of a police deterrent there.

You really think so? I can't imagine many situations down their where you would be popping guys at 300 yards. Personally, I think an unmagnified aimpoint would be ideal for defense. Although I could see the aimpoint's water resistance coming in hand--never thought about that before.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 6:37:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:
Its a $400 3X scope. Thats not THAT crazy. You guys act like a $400 scope is super expensive or something.

That's not completely accurate. By itself, it's not an optic since it has no reticule of any kind.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 6:39:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:

Originally Posted By m24shooter:
I bet those magnifiers might come in real handy for some couch potatoes in New Orleans, Biloxi, and Mobile Bay. Don't see much of a police deterrent there.

You really think so? I can't imagine many situations down their where you would be popping guys at 300 yards. Personally, I think an unmagnified aimpoint would be ideal for defense. Although I could see the aimpoint's water resistance coming in hand--never thought about that before.

It's not even necessarily about making 300 yds shots. A magnified optic makes target ID even at 100 yds much, much easier and it makes it easier to make a more precise shot.

I think I can summarize this thread this way. If you think it's too expensive, you either don't see the value in it or can't afford it. There is no dishonor is either opinion. But it is what it is and it costs what the market will bear. If you want to play, ya gotta pay.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 11:54:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:

Originally Posted By m24shooter:
I bet those magnifiers might come in real handy for some couch potatoes in New Orleans, Biloxi, and Mobile Bay. Don't see much of a police deterrent there.

You really think so? I can't imagine many situations down their where you would be popping guys at 300 yards. Personally, I think an unmagnified aimpoint would be ideal for defense. Although I could see the aimpoint's water resistance coming in hand--never thought about that before.


Hell yes. There's a lot of open areas due to the water. A lot of long streets/canals. Where you're used to thinking of ground level with the associated clutter, a lot of LOSs are "raised" a good bit, and clear of clutter due to it being underwater. You can see (and be seen) much further from a rooftop or whatever. It isn't all bayou and close country. And you don't neccessarily have to be shooting all of that distance. A magnified optic lets you ID/IFF from a lot farther off.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 11:57:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Matt_B:
I think I can summarize this thread this way. If you think it's too expensive, you either don't see the value in it or can't afford it. There is no dishonor is either opinion. But it is what it is and it costs what the market will bear. If you want to play, ya gotta pay.


Since my post pretty much got turned into some kind of statement that the M68 and 3x is equivalent to an ACOG, I'm almost sorry I said that. I didn't mean to imply that they were interchangeable. I was simply stating the economics of the issue, not looking at the capabilities.
I think the price is high, but I'll buy one. I thought the price was high for my ACOGs, but I've got those. And they are worth all of the money that they cost. IMO, the added capability is probably going to be worth it to me. I'd just buy it sooner if it were about $100 cheaper.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 12:09:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Matt_B:

Originally Posted By DevL:
Its a $400 3X scope. Thats not THAT crazy. You guys act like a $400 scope is super expensive or something.

That's not completely accurate. By itself, it's not an optic since it has no reticule of any kind.



The etching of a lens to make it have a reticle is practically a non cost its so inexpensive. Other than that its a weapon scope.
Top Top