Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/5/2004 7:01:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/5/2004 7:40:21 AM EST by rbielak]
My latest corrospondence with the "Aimpoint spokesperson in Sweeden" brought some very interesting technical data from Europe.

Hello Bob,

Our test department measured the electricity consumption of a Tacpoint yesterday (Aug 4) and here is the result:

The TACPOINT sight has 6 settings. A constant voltage supply (3.15 V) was used as source in order to avoid any differences in battery performance.

The brightest setting of the TACPOINT sight corresponds to the 9th setting of Aimpoint CompM2 and ML2.

TACPOINT

Setting Current

1 off
2 0.5 mA
3 1,5
4 2,7
5 6,9
6 24,1

AIMPOINT

Aimpoint sights brightest setting is 10 and the current is 0.6 mA. In the 9th position (corresponding to the highest setting of the Tacpoint sight) the current is 0.05 mA, which gives a ratio of 500 times. This means that Tacpoint sights have about 500 time higher current consumption than Aimpoint sights for the same intensity of the dot.


Score 1 for Aimpoint ...
(Emphasis added by me)
Link Posted: 8/5/2004 7:28:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/5/2004 7:28:42 AM EST by SPR-Mk12-Mod0]

Originally Posted By rbielak:
My latest corrospondence with the "Aimpoint spokesperson in Sweeden" brought some very interesting technical data from Europe.

Hello Bob,

Our test department measured the electricity consumption of a Tacpoint yesterday (Aug 4) and here is the result:

The TACPOINT sight has 6 settings. A constant voltage supply (3.15 V) was used as source in order to avoid any differences in battery performance.

The brightest setting of the TACPOINT sight corresponds to the 9th setting of Aimpoint CompM2 and ML2.

TACPOINT

Setting Current

1 off
2 0.5 mA
3 1,5
4 2,7
5 6,9
6 24,1

AIMPOINT

Aimpoint sights brightest setting is 10 and the current is 0.6 mA. In the 9th position (corresponding to the highest setting of the Tacpoint sight) the current is 0.05 mA, which gives a ratio of 500 times. This means that Tacpoint sights have about 500 time higher current consumption than Aimpoint sights for the same intensity of the dot.


(Emphasis added by me)



LMAO! You're asking for trouble, you know that?

How did you come up with those numbers? Did you hook up your TPoint to a volt meter?

Link Posted: 8/5/2004 7:36:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/5/2004 7:43:47 AM EST by rbielak]

Originally Posted By SPR-Mk12-Mod0:
LMAO! You're asking for trouble, you know that?

Actually, no, I'm not. I've cleared all this with the Staff.


How did you come up with those numbers? Did you hook up your TPoint to a volt meter?
I didn't. Aimpoint did. Perhaps you should read my entire message (particularly the FIRST sentence)

Suggestion: why don't you cut down your quote of the original message(s); it saves database space, bandwidth and helps keep people interested in the thread (instead of having to skip over long quotes of messages that they've already written). Just a suggestion, that's all!
Link Posted: 8/5/2004 7:54:58 AM EST
Thanks, rbielak. I have been asking for this info from the start. I also believe another member of this board was doing a 'real world' constant on test with his Tacpoint. Any updates here?
Link Posted: 8/5/2004 8:53:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By cnorton:
Thanks, rbielak. I have been asking for this info from the start. I also believe another member of this board was doing a 'real world' constant on test with his Tacpoint. Any updates here?


I think it's best if we keep this thread on topic -- I'm using it to post results that AIMPOINT has given me themselves. If we veer off into "Bob's Tests", it starts to get subjective -- and opens the door for certain types of people to start stirring up the pot, just to get the thread closed.
Link Posted: 8/5/2004 9:20:18 AM EST
this is good to know, but i figured as much, now we have some science behind the testing
Link Posted: 8/5/2004 10:12:32 AM EST
Now that Aimpoint can tell us about battery life, maybe they can test how"waterproof" the
Tac-Point is compared with an Aimpoint.
(this is great info, BTW thanks for posting it)
Link Posted: 8/5/2004 10:35:49 AM EST
no one in their right mind expects the tacpoint to perform as well as the aimpoint and its CET diode technology. and for 1/4 the price it shouldnt. im a firm believer in getting what you pay for. and when my tacpoint comes in it will live on either my 10/22 or my 9mm AR. it could never replace the aimpoints on my A2, A4 or M4.
Link Posted: 8/5/2004 11:21:35 AM EST
SPR-Mk12-Mod0- what business do you have in here anyway? It was my understanding that being one of the first to reply and have absolutely nothing to say is considered trolling. Way to go.

You've been here since July 2004. Keep up the nice comments and I'm sure you won't be here for long.

Thanks for the tests Bob. Basically we should in no way expect the batteries to survive long if left on. That sounds perfect for those of us who won't be needing to fire our rifles on a moment's notice. I use my rifle at the range. When I am done I unload and clear it before I pack it up so it shouldn't be a problem turning off the Tacpoing if I were to get one.
Link Posted: 8/5/2004 11:40:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By JosephR:
SPR-Mk12-Mod0- what business do you have in here anyway? It was my understanding that being one of the first to reply and have absolutely nothing to say is considered trolling. Way to go.

You've been here since July 2004. Keep up the nice comments and I'm sure you won't be here for long.

Thanks for the tests Bob. Basically we should in no way expect the batteries to survive long if left on. That sounds perfect for those of us who won't be needing to fire our rifles on a moment's notice. I use my rifle at the range. When I am done I unload and clear it before I pack it up so it shouldn't be a problem turning off the Tacpoing if I were to get one.



I'm a firm TPoint supporter, always have been. I support the efforts made by rbielek. Thanks for the great work, keep up the informative coorespondence with Aimpoint. Don't eat your own, I'm on your side guys.

Link Posted: 8/5/2004 12:26:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By JosephR:
Thanks for the tests Bob.

Again -- not MY tests (just so there is no confusion). The test results came from Aimpoint in Sweeden, from THEIR lab. It was THEIR tests on 8/5/2004.
Link Posted: 8/5/2004 12:28:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By strick909:
Now that Aimpoint can tell us about battery life, maybe they can test how"waterproof" the
Tac-Point is compared with an Aimpoint.
(this is great info, BTW thanks for posting it)


Hakko never claimed that the Tacpoint was waterproof. In fact, the documentation I received with the Tacpoint specifically stated "not submersible".
Link Posted: 8/5/2004 12:31:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By rbielak:
A constant voltage supply (3.15 V) was used as source in order to avoid any differences in battery performance.



If the Tacpoint uses a battery with more capacity than the Aimpoint it won't have 1/500th of the Aimpoint's battery life even though it's less efficient electrically. I forget the Tacpoint's battery type but don't think it's a 1/3N. I'd like to see a real world test of the Tacpoint's battery life. Obviously, Aimpoint has an advantage on power consumption with it's CET diode.
Link Posted: 8/5/2004 2:46:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/5/2004 2:51:05 PM EST by strick909]

Originally Posted By rbielak:
Hakko never claimed that the Tacpoint was waterproof. In fact, the documentation I received with the Tacpoint specifically stated "not submersible".




The Hakko TacPoint single ring configuration is a tactical reflex red dot sight, designed specifically for rapid target acquisition in close proximity. Shorter than its two-ring brother, this 4-3/4” scope is ideal for applications with limited mounting space. This robust aluminum alloy maintube design features precision windage and elevation adjustments, Nitrogen purging for absolute waterproof integrity, and a hard anodized no-glare matte finish. The 5-stage illuminated 4MOA reticle promises quick entrainment even in low light conditions. Comparable to the Aimpoint Comp ML2 at a fraction of the price, this tactical scope is hard to beat. Ships with 30mm Weaver-style mounting ring (also fits AR15 flat top), flip-up lens caps, & two batteries. This scope is covered by Hakko’s limited lifetime warranty.



rbielak,
This is the description from Hakko on all of the web sites for the dealers who sell them.
And didn't the Hakko rep from Japan say that they soak them in hot water?
I am not arguing here, just looking for a deffinitve answer on this issue. I am guessing that if Aimpoint tested one, they tested EVERYTHING. I just hope they share what they have found.

ETA: I am sure that even if "waterproof" it is not even close to the level of an Aimpoint, just like the battery info, I would just like to know how far off these two sights are.
Link Posted: 8/5/2004 3:36:20 PM EST

This robust aluminum alloy maintube design features precision windage and elevation adjustments, Nitrogen purging for absolute waterproof integrity, and a hard anodized no-glare matte finish.


I know some night vision optics (PVS-7B and PVS-14) have a purge valve for nitrogen purging. Does anyone know whether the tacpoint and/or aimpoint has a similar setup? If it's similar to the PVS-7B design, I know a way to find out once and for all if the tacpoint is truly waterproof.
Link Posted: 8/5/2004 5:15:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/5/2004 5:20:31 PM EST by rbielak]

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
If the Tacpoint uses a battery with more capacity than the Aimpoint it won't have 1/500th of the Aimpoint's battery life even though it's less efficient electrically.


The information from Aimpoint doesn't say anything about "battery life"; it's referring to current consumption. It states "This means that Tacpoint sights have about 500 time higher current consumption than Aimpoint sights for the same intensity of the dot." They don't say anything about battery life.
Link Posted: 8/5/2004 5:19:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/5/2004 5:25:18 PM EST by rbielak]

Originally Posted By strick909:
This is the description from Hakko on all of the web sites for the dealers who sell them.


I'm not here to confirm or deny the validity of website marketing propaganda. If that's what the website(s) say, then that's what the website(s) say.

However, in the instructions I received WITH THE PRODUCT, it specifically stated "not submersible". That's all I can go by.

There's no way I'm going to claim that the Tacpoint is 'waterproof' if THIS is what I read on the literature I received WITH the product. That's only asking for arguments from certain types of people who occassionally troll frequent these threads.
Link Posted: 8/5/2004 5:22:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/5/2004 5:28:27 PM EST by rbielak]

Originally Posted By sodacan_slayer:
Does anyone know whether the tacpoint and/or aimpoint has a similar setup? If it's similar to the PVS-7B design, I know a way to find out once and for all if the tacpoint is truly waterproof.



I didn't see any type of purge valve on the TP, nor did I read anything relative to this in the instructions.

Perhaps Mr. Kingston will find this thread and expound on the Aimpoint M2/ML2 (updated: I sent Mr. Kingston an email with a link to this thread).
Link Posted: 8/5/2004 7:13:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By rbielak:
However, in the instructions I received WITH THE PRODUCT, it specifically stated "not submersible". That's all I can go by.




rbielak, who did you buy yours from? I know nightvisionweb.com started to put a printed flier with their tacpoints they sold, due to the test on this sight where the guy's tacpoint failed the submersion test. I think that before that incident, tacpoints did not come with instructions.

This isnt meant to stir up anything, just passing along information.

Link Posted: 8/5/2004 7:45:18 PM EST

There's no way I'm going to claim that the Tacpoint is 'waterproof' if THIS is what I read on the literature I received WITH the product. That's only asking for arguments from certain types of people who occassionally troll frequent these threads


I completely understand. And I know you don't care one way or the other. I know you started all this in a "quest for the truth" type of thread. I can respect that. There is just so much mis-information out there. I just want to know if the thing is waterproof AT ALL, not just submersible.
Link Posted: 8/6/2004 3:29:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By Trey-W:
rbielak, who did you buy yours from? I know nightvisionweb.com started to put a printed flier with their tacpoints they sold, due to the test on this sight where the guy's tacpoint failed the submersion test. I think that before that incident, tacpoints did not come with instructions.


Yes, I bought mine from nightvisionweb.com. However, I do not have a 'before' and 'after' set of instructions, so I have nothing to compare.

Cigarette manufacturers actually used to promote their products as "healthy". 'Course, that was before they realized they weren't healthy.

You bring up a good point, though. Nightvisionweb.com includes their OWN brochure, instructions, and (according to you), have modified it based on a single incident where one of their customers (The_Drifter) returned a scope for replacement, due to a submersion incident.

Now that I think about this ... Hakko hasn't stated that the scope is NOT submersible -- nightvisionweb.com simply put this disclaimer in there to avoid having to replace scopes that their customers "tested".

Perhaps a waterproofness test should be in line after all ... :)
Link Posted: 8/6/2004 3:44:19 AM EST

Perhaps Mr. Kingston will find this thread and expound on the Aimpoint M2/ML2 (updated: I sent Mr. Kingston an email with a link to this thread).


I do better answering direct questions, and i don't want to be accused of "trolling" by launching into a pro-Aimpoint sales pitch.

Our current sights are extremely pressure resistant. I am not aware of anyone's having tested one to failure in a pressure tank, although we have tried. I hope that comment is something like what you were looking for!

Take care,

Mike.
Link Posted: 8/6/2004 4:16:34 AM EST

nightvisionweb.com simply put this disclaimer in there to avoid having to replace scopes that their customers "tested".


I'd be willing to bet that this is EXACTLY why they included the note. They don't want 50 tacpoints coming back because everyone is trying to test them. If that happened, they'd be screwed and don't want to have to tell their customers to knock it off or something similar.

Link Posted: 8/6/2004 9:24:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
I forget the Tacpoint's battery type but don't think it's a 1/3N.

It uses either a single CR 1/3N or two LR44 batteries.
Link Posted: 8/6/2004 11:27:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By Aimpoint:

I do better answering direct questions, and i don't want to be accused of "trolling" by launching into a pro-Aimpoint sales pitch.

Mike.



Mike / AKA Aimpoint,
Any chance you pressure tested the Tac-point too?
That's a direct question, you so you are not trolling if you answer it either way. (BTW, this place is so "Pro Aimpoint " you would think some of these guys are getting free product everytime the say your name. )
Link Posted: 8/6/2004 12:34:08 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/6/2004 3:52:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/6/2004 3:55:33 PM EST by Paul]
Link Posted: 8/6/2004 4:53:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/6/2004 5:08:06 PM EST by rbielak]

Originally Posted By Boom:
Buy Aimpoint!


C'mon, Boom. You know that's not necessary or pertinent to a 'technical discussion' in a 'technical forum' such as Optics, Mounts and Sights.
Link Posted: 8/6/2004 4:54:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By strick909:
(BTW, this place is so "Pro Aimpoint " you would think some of these guys are getting free product everytime the say your name. )


Be cool, Strick909. This is what starts the off-topic arguments. We don't want to see this thread locked, do we? Thanks.
Link Posted: 8/6/2004 5:09:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paul:
I'm going to do some measurements myself just to confim

Sweet. Nice to know we have a 'Lectrical Geek to do some follow-up tests ... :)
Link Posted: 8/8/2004 3:07:58 PM EST
Any updates??

rbielak: Nightvisionweb.com admitted that the scopes were only water resistant, not water-proof. They had come to this conclusion before the first test optic was returned.

I think Aimpoint's test will be very constructive toward this discussion.
Link Posted: 8/8/2004 3:59:35 PM EST
I haven't been following this whole TacPoint thing, but..

I'm an electrical engineer. Anyone can measure the current flow in this situation simply by putting an accurate ammeter in series with the battery.

A battery contains potential energy-- in other words, it stores energy. Power is energy per time. In an electrical circuit, the power consumed is Voltage * Current. In this case, we know the voltage (battery or supply voltage) and the measured current.

The energy stored in a battery is usually measured in milli-amp-hours. If a battery has 20 mAh, it could source 1mA for 20 hours, or 2 mA for 10 hours. So the current drain is precisely relevant to battery life.

-z
Link Posted: 8/9/2004 6:41:02 AM EST
I appreciate the support! I don't believe that we have tested any Tacpoint sights in any potentially destructive ways yet. If and when we do, I don't know that it would be proper for us to publish our results. As you can imagine, publishing results like that would be at least inflammatory here! Someone will always claim bias, others would question our methodology, some would wonder if we tested a valid sample size, and still others would say, "I'm never going to dive with my sight" or "I'll never put mine on a .50 BMG and shoot it 10,000 times." You see what I mean?

At the same time, I rely on testing data, both formal and informal, when making my own purchasing decisions, so I understand your wanting that data published.

In all likelihood, a Tacpoint sight would hold up to normal shooting at the range, and from that aspect it appears to be "enough sight" for the average plinker. After all, most companies that sell red dot sights buys those sights from Hakko complete. There are a lot of satisfied plinkers out there who use red dot sights other than Aimpoint. On the other hand, to say that any red dot sight is a better value than an Aimpoint sight is pretty short-sighted. By my (mine, not Aimpoint, Inc.'s) conservative calculations based on both sights using the DL1/3N battery and used for the same amount of time at the same intensity, you would have to replace the battery over 480 times in the Tacpoint befor the battery in the Aimpoint sight died. At just $3.00 per battery (the lowest price I could find not including tax or shipping) that comes to over $1400. (Who says public school education ain't no good!) Add the retail price of $150 for the Tacpoint, and voila! you've paid much more for the Tacpoint than you would have for a CompML2!

Please remember that for the most part, I'm a regular shooter like most of you, but I also have to admit to a bias toward the product I'm paid to sell.

Mike
Link Posted: 8/9/2004 7:27:45 AM EST
To be honest, I think comparing the Tacpoint to the Aimpoint is like comparing apples to oranges. There's just no way one can convince me that in today's market you could produce a red dot scope that meets the same specs as the Aimpoint and be able to sell it for 1/3 the price. To me the issue is not whether the Tacpoint is comparable to the Aimpoint. I just do not expect it to be. I would like to know enough about the Tacpoint to determine how it compares to other makes and models in the same price range (for example the Tasco Propoint).

I am not sure why Hakko/RSR decided to mimic the look of the Aimpoint in producing the Tacpoint. And, to be honest, I don't much care. What I do need is some good, reliable data on how the Tacpoint performs relative to other reddots in it's class. The Tacpoint is not, in any real measure, in the same class as the Aimpoint.

I am considering purchasing a Tacpoint, because that's what I can afford right now. Eventually, I would like to get an Aimpoint or EOTech. But what I need to know now is whether the Tacpoint is a better value than the Tasco Propoint or a Bushnell Trophy.

If we want to compare the Aimpoint to something in it's class, how about the Leupold Mark 4 or Zeiss Z-Point?

Just one man's observation.

Karl
Link Posted: 8/9/2004 7:34:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/9/2004 7:35:02 AM EST by rbielak]

Originally Posted By Aimpoint:
By my (mine, not Aimpoint, Inc.'s) conservative calculations based on both sights using the DL1/3N battery and used for the same amount of time at the same intensity, you would have to replace the battery over 480 times in the Tacpoint befor the battery in the Aimpoint sight died.


Based on your calculations, and running both at highest intensity, a standard CR1/3N battery should last no longer than 7.6 days in a Tacpoint while lasting 10 years in an M2/ML2? Thanks.
Link Posted: 8/9/2004 7:37:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By Aimpoint:
On the other hand, to say that any red dot sight is a better value than an Aimpoint sight is pretty short-sighted.


Don't ever try to convince anybody that you're NOT from the Sales & Marketing division ...
Link Posted: 8/9/2004 8:28:54 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/9/2004 9:19:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/9/2004 9:22:10 PM EST by sodacan_slayer]

a standard CR1/3N battery should last no longer than 7.6 days in a Tacpoint while lasting 10 years in an M2/ML2


Based on what I was told by someone who did a real world test on the tacpoint battery life, the 7.6 day estimate mentioned above is almost right on. I was told the dot still worked at 8 days but was getting dim.

"rbielak"-----
I double checked your math, and according to the "480 times battery life" estimate by "Aimpoint" this all adds up. This also adds up according to the 24.1ma (tacpoint) and 0.05ma (aimpoint) test results.

Here is the only thing that doesn't add up. According to aimpoints website, the typical battery life for a M2 is 1,000-10,000 hours. I assume 1,000 hours is for the highest setting, which if I'm not mistaken, comes out to about 41.6 days (0.11 years). I'm guessing 10,000 hours is the lowest setting, which would be 416.6 days (1.14 years). Aimpoints website does say the night vision settings typically have a 10 year battery life.

As you can see, according to this, either the M2's "9th brightness setting" (10 year life) is comparable to their night vision setting (10 year life) in power consumption, and is well above their "1,000 - 10,000 hour" battery estimates listed on their website (in which case, we should all definately keep our aimpoints on setting 9), or one of the numbers on the test is wrong.

"Aimpoint"------
Could you double check the 0.05ma figure on the M2's "9th brightness setting" for me to be sure it is correct? If that is a typo and it's actually 0.5ma that would put us between the 1,000-10,000 hours figure and would also be just below the 0.6ma (10th brightness setting), both of which is what we would expect to see.

Either way, the aimpoint has a much better battery life (whether it be 48 times or 480 times). I also appreciate the fact that aimpoint is willing to take the time to do these test for us, and send a representative to answer our questions. It's not my intention to give our aimpont rep a hard time, I just wanted to make sure all the data is correct, so everything adds up. Thanks.
Link Posted: 8/10/2004 3:20:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By sodacan_slayer:
Either way, the aimpoint has a much better battery life (whether it be 48 times or 480 times). I also appreciate the fact that aimpoint is willing to take the time to do these test for us, and send a representative to answer our questions. It's not my intention to give our aimpont rep a hard time, I just wanted to make sure all the data is correct, so everything adds up. Thanks.


Agreed - the AP's CET technology is much better, but claiming 480 times when it's perhaps 1/10th of that is ... well ... more than just 'stretching'. I'm curious to see a reply.
Link Posted: 8/10/2004 4:10:45 AM EST
My first question would be why would Aimpoint waste its time comparing its products to the damn tacpoint?
Link Posted: 8/10/2004 4:20:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
My first question would be why would Aimpoint waste its time comparing its products to the damn tacpoint?


If you have nothing constructive to add to the conversatoin (e.g., technical comments relative to the electrical consumption issue at hand), many would appreciate it if you would simply skip the thread altogether.

Thanks!
Link Posted: 8/10/2004 4:34:38 AM EST
Checking...
Link Posted: 8/10/2004 4:38:48 AM EST
I'd expect that the sophisticated Aimpoint electronics/battery-saving technology is a large part of the additional cost over a Tacpoint.

I never even thought that the Tacpoint would have the same battery life as a modern Aimpoint.

I'm sure the Tacpoint has a simple direct attachment to the LED, thru some sort of voltage regulating device, like maybe even a simple resistor network in the switch.

That doesn't bother me at all. As long as the red-dot is there, and the bullet hits where I'm aiming, I'm fine with that.

I can carry a couple of spare batteries easily.
Heck, my Surefire light goes thru batteries alot faster, and I still think it's a good light.
I'm happy if the Tacpoint works, and I can use it in a good mount that co-witnesses with my BUIS.
I can live with occasional battery changes.

Personally, I think the Tacpoint is a great idea for those who would like to have a decent low-cost red-dot sight, that can work in the accepted military-type mounts, SIMILAR to an Aimpoint.

I don't think that anyone was ever saying that the Tacpoint is just as good as an Aimpoint, but rather that it might be just as good for their personal kind of use, for a price they can afford. Actually, 10 years ago the Tasco Pro-Points were the hot set-up, and they needed frequent battery changes, and lasted pretty well in hard usage and competition, and nobody had much bad to say about them, really. This Tacpoint is not much different, but it happens to look like an Aimpoint.
Link Posted: 8/10/2004 5:05:18 AM EST
I've ordered a Tacpoint. I'm gonna beat the motherfucker with a hammer when I get it. I'm going to include that picture on every one of my posts. I can't seem to get it into people's heads that I'm interested in keeping shit calm and not necessarily about hearing bullshit about Tacpoints.
Link Posted: 8/10/2004 6:53:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By rbielak:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
My first question would be why would Aimpoint waste its time comparing its products to the damn tacpoint?


If you have nothing constructive to add to the conversatoin (e.g., technical comments relative to the electrical consumption issue at hand), many would appreciate it if you would simply skip the thread altogether.

Thanks!



Do you consider your threads "Constructive"? Many of us do not!
Link Posted: 8/10/2004 7:25:01 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/10/2004 7:43:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By rbielak:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
My first question would be why would Aimpoint waste its time comparing its products to the damn tacpoint?


If you have nothing constructive to add to the conversatoin (e.g., technical comments relative to the electrical consumption issue at hand), many would appreciate it if you would simply skip the thread altogether.

Thanks!



Do you consider your threads "Constructive"? Many of us do not!



Yet you post anyway, rather than ignoring them.



+1
Link Posted: 8/10/2004 9:50:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By sodacan_slayer:
Could you double check the 0.05ma figure on the M2's "9th brightness setting" for me to be sure it is correct? If that is a typo and it's actually 0.5ma that would put us between the 1,000-10,000 hours figure and would also be just below the 0.6ma (10th brightness setting), both of which is what we would expect to see.

Either way, the aimpoint has a much better battery life (whether it be 48 times or 480 times). I also appreciate the fact that aimpoint is willing to take the time to do these test for us, and send a representative to answer our questions. It's not my intention to give our aimpont rep a hard time, I just wanted to make sure all the data is correct, so everything adds up. Thanks.



Found some interesting data today:

Aimpoint's website states 1,000 to 10,000 hours on a single battery at NVD setting. Isn't that like saying, "The possibility for rain today is 10 to 100 percent? Quite a wide margin of error.

EagleFirearms (CO dealer, very well known and liked around these parts) posted the following in an EE ad for the M2/ML2:

The ML2 and M2 are the same, except the M2 is night vision compatible and does not have a off position, but it is still rated over 1000 hours on the lowest setting. (emphasis added)

If it lasts 10 times as long, why wouldn't a reputable dealer post "over 10,000 hours" ??

ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=7&f=23&t=179850

Just some 'Lectrical observations.
Link Posted: 8/10/2004 10:11:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/10/2004 10:30:35 AM EST by thebeekeeper1]
<Removed. If you value your time on this site I STRONGLY suggest you not troll this forum. This is your ONE warning--note the time stamp--further posts of this type will result in the permanent locking of your account. --thebeekeeper1>
Link Posted: 8/10/2004 10:14:24 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/10/2004 10:15:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/10/2004 10:21:11 AM EST by Va_Dinger]

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:
Damn! I want one! Maybe they are looking for dealers???


C4



Go ahead, jump on the bandwagon!
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top