Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/23/2009 2:43:57 PM EST
So I've always been a little curious how people justify spending upwards of 1,000 bucks on a red dot sight...

Now obviously there are huuuuge differences between an ACOG and a 50 dollar red dot sight, but what on earth could justify spending as much as you did on the gun itself?

Is it like buying a rolex or something where yeah it still tells the same time as a 5 dollar watch but people buy it because of the image, the worksmanship, etc?

What about it is worth so much freaking money? Its just a red dot!

Thanks all
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 2:45:59 PM EST
because they they are accurate and work every time
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 2:47:08 PM EST
Holding a zero is one reason.
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 2:49:25 PM EST
Its really no different than spending 1000 bucks on a non-red dot sight.

Although honestly, other than an ACOG, which isnt really a red dot sight( at least in my book), aimpoints and eotechs dont really cost anywhere near 1000.
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 2:49:26 PM EST
cheapies are designed for airsoft. wont hold up to live fire

pay money and get the real stuff
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 2:52:45 PM EST
I bought a cheap red dot sight to start with (about $100) and I found it had 2 major problems that made it unusable for me. First, it would lose its zero - ever time I went to the range I would have to re-zero it. That was kind of annoying. Also, I found that the cheap red dot does not appear to be parallax free. I suppose that's not a super-big deal if you are just at the range, but it kind of defeats the purpose of having a red dot IMHO.

It seems simple enough, but I think putting a red-dot in a parallax free manner that can withstand the shock of multiple bullet recoils requires some pretty sophisticated engineering which of course costs more money.

I've since shelled out the money and gotten an EOTech and it's worked really well.

Link Posted: 3/23/2009 2:52:56 PM EST
Basic eotech is around $300, ....mine (553) was $639.

here is where the money comes in.

Take my eotech down to 50 feet under the water. Then drop it from 5 feet about 10 times. Then smash the glass window with a hammer, making sure to leave at least a small 1/4" piece of glass remaining.

When you look through that little piece of glass, you will still see the reticle...and you will probably still be able to hit what you are aiming at :)

THAT is why they cost $639. Not because they are made of $300-600 worth of metal and glass, but because they are tested to standards that are tough.

And they are cool!
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 2:54:42 PM EST
The top of the line Aimpoint is only 600.

Plus the cheap ones are not waterproof for when you do your Navy Seal work

But seriously go buy a cheap one and see how long it lasts and how good it is.

You WILL end up spending the money later. I have learned this lesson before in scopes and tools.

Dont buy cheap because when you need it to work it will be broke.

/thread
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 2:57:40 PM EST
I have 1 of each Aimpoint and EoTech, they're both great sights. I also have an Aimpoint clone, it's not bad, but it's not the real thing, it doesn't hold zero as well, and I would worry about it dimming when you need it most. So for professional grade, stick to the real thing. If you're jjust looking range fun, clone is good enough.
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 2:57:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/23/2009 3:02:14 PM EST by Dutchy556]
NTSA....

Well first of all, something like an ACOG isn't a conventional red dot - an ACOG is a magnified optic, extremely rugged, illuminated without need for batteries, etc. ACOGs have very clear glass with a great amount of light transmission and are rugged as all hell. They are designed primarily to better facilitate killing people who are actively trying to kill you as well. They are worth $1000 dollars. The advantage they provide is priceless.

People pay top dollar for ACOGs and other high end units like Aimpoints and Eotechs because they are designed to stand up to the rigors of being mounted on a fighting rifle and used roughly in less-than-ideal conditions. A $50 POS red dot from your local sporting goods store is not.

Also, a $5 watch does NOT keep time the same as a Rolex. You have to kidding, right? Sure, they will both tell you a time, but the rolex will run forever and keep very exact time and the 5 dollar watch will need it's battery replaced, likely crap out on you eventually, and run either fast or slow (take your pick...). Same idea with optics... just because two different units project a red dot doesn't make them equal. The differences are NOT only superficial.

And +1 to all the points made by other posters that I'm too lazy to touch on... zero hold, parallax, etc...
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 3:04:07 PM EST
What Makes an expensive red dot sight worth it?

The look on my wife's face when she sees that I bought another one!
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 3:04:51 PM EST
AimPoint... Simply the BEST (IMHO)

I like EoTechs... just a few turns offs from them that steered me towards Aimpoint.

ACOG's.... Never liked a single one... and there is a bunch of reasons why i wont pay for thier overpriceed Shit...on top of which ACOG's cost less to produce... and they charge you more...

Kinda like a Glock... great guns and all (I have one i carry)... but they cost less to produce then say a Beretta 92FS (IMHO way finer handgun then a G19, just harder to conceal... but costs less)... yet glocks retail for more... why?... the name...

Aimpoint or Eotech... you get your moneys worth... ACOG... while still a good optic (in most peoples eyes... not mine) you pay alot for the cool look and fancy pants name... trijicons stuff has always been over priced as hell...

I didn't want to cough up the money for the longest time... then I dropped between 1300-1400 into a Aimpoint Comp M4s (on La Rue mount) + Aimpoint 3x (on La Rue Pivoting mount)... and I don't regret it one bit... I out shot 63 other people at an appleseed... scored way higher scores then everyone there.. and I credit it to the optic set up on my AR more so then my skills... Alot of those guys were current/retired LEO with there children/grandchildren there. Then again some of them had Eotechs and I still beat them... but without the Optic setup... I would not have done as well... and no CHEAP optic will hold up as well...

Buy a V6 mustang because it looks like a mustang... it will still never be a Saleen... the cost justifies it's capabilities... despite similar appearances...
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 3:06:54 PM EST
Originally Posted By BeachPatrol:
What Makes an expensive red dot sight worth it?

The look on my wife's face when she sees that I bought another one!






You are a fine gentlemen indeed...
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 3:11:13 PM EST
Check out the vortex strike fire...all the options of an aimpoint but batterie life is only 2000 hours but that makes the rugged $140 red dot 2x the life as an Eotech.I have used mine through 2 classes so far this year and its been pretty rugged so far.With Acogs theres nothing like em..batterie free and extremely rugged.
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 3:11:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/23/2009 3:12:05 PM EST by cedjunior]
You're also paying for things you might not actually need like:
Battery Life
Increased water resistance depth
zero parallax
NV compatibility
etc.
........

Unless your life depends on these things, I don't think they're necessary. Coincidentally the brands that don't focus on that stuff are usually assembled by 12 year olds in China. That being said you can still pick up some non Aimpoint/Eotech sights and still have something decent. Just don't post any pictures or you'll be made fun of It seems as though this thread is quickly turning into an Aimpoint vs Eotech or "why I bought my _____" thread.
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 3:29:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/23/2009 3:29:51 PM EST by subterfugeinc]
The cheap red dot I had (granted, I only bought it so I could shoot my gun while waiting for my rear sight) would not hold zero BETWEEN SHOTS! Never got it quite dialed in . you pay for reliability. Even if you are only shooting paper, it would be nice if the damn thing had any relation to where you were shooting. I have fired about 300 rds through my gun since I finished it a few weeks ago, but it was more of a function test than anything else. I am going to get an aimpoint once I have more lowers put away, in the mean time, I'll stick to irons. At least I'll know where to aim.
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 3:29:21 PM EST
You can own 5 cheap red dots that won't hold a zero or one Aimpoint thats GTG everytime
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 3:38:36 PM EST
Ruggedness
Water-Proof
Battery Life
Holds Zero
CDI
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 3:49:29 PM EST
I dont have any of the three , but have looked through each one and if I was so mined then it would be an acog since I prefer some magnification. but I understand the reasoning of dropping 300-600 for an aim point especially the new ones that will run for years on the same batteries even while being left turned on . the difference in price isnt as great as you think between so-so optics and some really nice dots . aimpoint comp3 399.00 compared to atn digital ultra sight 149.00 thats 250.00 dollars difference between an optic you need to replace the batteries every 200 hour and one that needs the batteries changed every 50,000 hours. so for about the price of attending two cardinal base ball games or 4 friday nights out at the local bar you could have a top of the line optic that will last a life time . its just a matter of priorities.
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 3:57:03 PM EST
There are good, relatively inexpensive red dot optics that will hold zero and are durable enough for most applications, however if I were to get another one I would get another Aimpoint. The major reason for me is battery life. It would go on my "bump-in-the-night" gun and I would want that rifle to be ready to go immediately if needed. With an Aimpoint, turn it on and leave it alone.
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 3:57:16 PM EST
The gist is you're paying* for reliability.

That includes holding zero, batteries lasting and withstanding bumpy, wet, cold treatment.


* Nowhere near $1,000.
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 4:36:42 PM EST
I have a sightmark that I haven't had to re-zero.

Then again I have it on a .22 practice upper.

Buy the real thing, just in case you have to put your life in your rifle's hands. Then you'll wish you bought the real thing, isn't your life worth $300-$500?
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 4:49:01 PM EST
Originally Posted By bartman2244:
So I've always been a little curious how people justify spending upwards of 1,000 bucks on a red dot sight...

Now obviously there are huuuuge differences between an ACOG and a 50 dollar red dot sight, but what on earth could justify spending as much as you did on the gun itself?

Is it like buying a rolex or something where yeah it still tells the same time as a 5 dollar watch but people buy it because of the image, the worksmanship, etc?

What about it is worth so much freaking money? Its just a red dot!

Thanks all


How bout go ask a veteran or someone in the military and ask them how many acogs they have seen crap out or break... You will then have your answer.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 5:04:16 PM EST
Originally Posted By bartman2244:
So I've always been a little curious how people justify spending upwards of 1,000 bucks on a red dot sight...

Now obviously there are huuuuge differences between an ACOG and a 50 dollar red dot sight, but what on earth could justify spending as much as you did on the gun itself?

Is it like buying a rolex or something where yeah it still tells the same time as a 5 dollar watch but people buy it because of the image, the worksmanship, etc?

What about it is worth so much freaking money? Its just a red dot!

Thanks all


The fact that you asked that question, means you won't get the answer... and tell us what red sot cost's $1000??
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 5:54:50 PM EST
Originally Posted By HiLow64Imp:
cheapies are designed for airsoft. wont hold up to live fire

pay money and get the real stuff


I hate these kinds of posts. This guy probably hasn't bought or tried either kind of sight and probably has no working knowledge of what he speaks. Just spouting off. I have a 100 dollar no name red dot sight. It stays put on the weapon and hold zero. I only paid 100 bucks for it so I aint afraid to be a little rough with it. It holds zero just fine. As a matter or fact, I switch between a scope and the red dot sight with a 25.00 cantilever mount (surely not Larue can't affrod the name but it is just as good). Every time I replace the scope with my sight, it hits right on zero were it did when I took it off. So, you are paying for the name and nothing more. It may be of higher quality materials, but unless it's made from diomands and gold it's not worth that much more. The R and D has been done and paid for, for years, so you aren't paying for that either. They charge you 1200 for a sight because some people will pay that and they get away with it. If people would stop paying the high prices, they would probably go down. So yes, my 100 dot sight works just fine and "YES" having been in combat, I would in fact use it in combat. Would I like to have a 1200 sight. Hell yes, but there is nothing that would justify me paying that price. Just because something has a "decent" price, doesn't mean it is airsoft.
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 6:13:10 PM EST
These pics are of the innards of a $100+ fake Aimpoint:



To the "just as good" crowd: After looking at those pics, would you really trust your life to that? I sure wouldn't.

The $25 potmetal mounts aren't any better.

Sorry, but I value my life more than that. Toy optics belong on toy guns.

Link Posted: 3/23/2009 6:18:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By renesis:
Originally Posted By bartman2244:
So I've always been a little curious how people justify spending upwards of 1,000 bucks on a red dot sight...

Now obviously there are huuuuge differences between an ACOG and a 50 dollar red dot sight, but what on earth could justify spending as much as you did on the gun itself?

Is it like buying a rolex or something where yeah it still tells the same time as a 5 dollar watch but people buy it because of the image, the worksmanship, etc?

What about it is worth so much freaking money? Its just a red dot!

Thanks all


How bout go ask a veteran or someone in the military and ask them how many acogs they have seen crap out or break... You will then have your answer.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


I have never seen one single ACOG stop working unless the entire weapon was destroyed and that usually caused lots of harm to the user. Never seen a Aimpoint CCO that went tits up either. Battery replacement is part of the PCI/PCC.

Link Posted: 3/23/2009 6:47:41 PM EST
I have a $100 bushnell trophy, and it works great for the paper targets i shoot with it... but they don't shoot back. If i had to put my life on the line, or if i wasn't a broke college kid, I would cough up the money for a better one. It really all depends on what you use it for.
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 7:06:58 PM EST
Originally Posted By scottrh2:
Originally Posted By renesis:
Originally Posted By bartman2244:
So I've always been a little curious how people justify spending upwards of 1,000 bucks on a red dot sight...

Now obviously there are huuuuge differences between an ACOG and a 50 dollar red dot sight, but what on earth could justify spending as much as you did on the gun itself?

Is it like buying a rolex or something where yeah it still tells the same time as a 5 dollar watch but people buy it because of the image, the worksmanship, etc?

What about it is worth so much freaking money? Its just a red dot!

Thanks all


How bout go ask a veteran or someone in the military and ask them how many acogs they have seen crap out or break... You will then have your answer.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


I have never seen one single ACOG stop working unless the entire weapon was destroyed and that usually caused lots of harm to the user. Never seen a Aimpoint CCO that went tits up either. Battery replacement is part of the PCI/PCC.



Exactly what I thought
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 7:22:13 PM EST
I found out the hard way that it does not pay to buy cheap optics. I had and red dot that I could not see during the day (with new battery) and my other sight fell apart during a shooting session (the windage screw popped off). I bought an ACOG and an Eotech. I only wish I could afford another three so all my rifles could have their own optic.
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 7:31:46 PM EST
You know what they say "Buy nice or buy twice".
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 7:32:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/23/2009 7:45:01 PM EST by Muttt]
Originally Posted By CJan_NH:
These pics are of the innards of a $100+ fake Aimpoint:

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9881/fakedisassembledlh8.jpg

To the "just as good" crowd: After looking at those pics, would you really trust your life to that? I sure wouldn't.

The $25 potmetal mounts aren't any better

Sorry, but I value my life more than that. Toy optics belong on toy guns.



Sorry, but the peice of shit you show in your pics is not the same sight that I bought. JUST BECAUSE IT HAS A DECENT PRICE DOESN'T MEAN IT'S GOTTA BE AIRSOFT. There are some good quality items out there that aren't made by AIMPOINT, EOTECH or LARUE.

This was posted in another thread by a parts dealer and I agree with him 100 percent.

"From a dealers point of view, one thing I find funny is some people are commercial whores. And what I meen by that is, people tend to lean towards a product not so much on how well it works for them, but how much they can brag about it because of cost, or that company spent tons of money on a media blitz showing fake navy seals comming out of the rubber raft with their product in hand. There are many good products out there by various different companies. Don't buy crap because of high speed commercials, buy it because it works for you!!"
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 7:37:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By BeachPatrol:
What Makes an expensive red dot sight worth it?

The look on my wife's face when she sees that I bought another one!


BEST ANSWER YET!
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 8:04:22 PM EST
What makes it worth it? When the good guys are depending on it to protect themselves and help decrease the population of bad guys, knowing he has unflinching quality as he looks through that window between his eyes, the trigger, and the bad guy. Knowing that optic has not failed countless others and the chances it will fail on him is equally slim. When it is a small part of an equation that will let him come home alive.

That is why they exist and why people choose to purchase them.
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 8:08:11 PM EST
Originally Posted By bartman2244:

what on earth could justify spending as much as you did on the gun itself?



My life is worth it. Thats good enough for me. You might have a different value system though
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 9:11:37 PM EST
Performance speaks, Aimpoint M4. Though if I had to pick between a Rolex and a Timex for everyday wear I'd take my Timex.
Link Posted: 3/23/2009 10:02:23 PM EST
Being new to the AR, I bought this crappy red-dot for $60 at a gunshow. It was supposed to hold zero on .223 live fire but broke after a magful of rounds. The little mirror inside (shown) came lose from the glue. Should have used that money towards a real Eotech or Aimpoint.

For some reason I can't explain, this is the type of cheap red-dot you see in the Call of Duty 4 game, which is supposed to depict authentic gear. Please tell me our military does not use this crap!1

Link Posted: 3/23/2009 11:15:23 PM EST
YMMV




Link Posted: 3/24/2009 2:59:44 AM EST
Originally Posted By CJan_NH:
These pics are of the innards of a $100+ fake Aimpoint:

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9881/fakedisassembledlh8.jpg

To the "just as good" crowd: After looking at those pics, would you really trust your life to that? I sure wouldn't.

The $25 potmetal mounts aren't any better.

Sorry, but I value my life more than that. Toy optics belong on toy guns.



Um, thats not really a fair comparison at all. You are comparing known, gun show, "fake" Aimpoint being represented as a "real" Aimpoint to purchasing a lower cost option in an optic? Its disingenuous at best.

Link Posted: 3/24/2009 3:35:10 AM EST
Originally Posted By Muttt:
Originally Posted By HiLow64Imp:
cheapies are designed for airsoft. wont hold up to live fire

pay money and get the real stuff


. So, you are paying for the name and nothing more. It may be of higher quality materials, but unless it's made from diomands and gold it's not worth that much more. The R and D has been done and paid for, for years, so you aren't paying for that either. They charge you 1200 for a sight because some people will pay that and they get away with it. If people would stop paying the high prices, they would probably go down.




What most of you who can't rational the prices fail to realize is that there is a lot more that goes into determining the end price. A HUGE portion is determined by the specification compliance for the products. Yes, I'm a Engineer. And Yes, I work for the DoD. The specification defines testing requirements which an easily run $1,000,000. Divided the testing cost against an annual production run and see how much the testing requirements add to the cost of the end item. Then add in tooling which can also be astronomical and R&D and the end price of the unit never adds up to the sum of the cost of its parts. All the testing and tooling are amortized into the piece cost.

Link Posted: 3/24/2009 3:52:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/24/2009 4:03:51 AM EST by Lawman734]
Originally Posted By Frankie_2_Times:
Originally Posted By Muttt:
Originally Posted By HiLow64Imp:
cheapies are designed for airsoft. wont hold up to live fire

pay money and get the real stuff


. So, you are paying for the name and nothing more. It may be of higher quality materials, but unless it's made from diomands and gold it's not worth that much more. The R and D has been done and paid for, for years, so you aren't paying for that either. They charge you 1200 for a sight because some people will pay that and they get away with it. If people would stop paying the high prices, they would probably go down.




What most of you who can't rational the prices fail to realize is that there is a lot more that goes into determining the end price. A HUGE portion is determined by the specification compliance for the products. Yes, I'm a Engineer. And Yes, I work for the DoD. The specification defines testing requirements which an easily run $1,000,000. Divided the testing cost against an annual production run and see how much the testing requirements add to the cost of the end item. Then add in tooling which can also be astronomical and R&D and the end price of the unit never adds up to the sum of the cost of its parts. All the testing and tooling are amortized into the piece cost.



The above holds true as well as things like production capacity, etc-pricing kept high to reduce the commercial demand so they don't outgrow their capacity too quickly.

As for the pics of the cheapie with the lenses held in place w/ no "seals" and cheap trim rings-most all scopes, including high quality scopes use trim and lock rings to secure the lenses into place. There are only 2 that I have seen that have the lenses actually bedded into place-S&B and Nightforce. The others use trim rings or worse yet, crimp the glass into place.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 4:02:49 AM EST
Originally Posted By scottrh2:
I have never seen one single ACOG stop working unless the entire weapon was destroyed and that usually caused lots of harm to the user. Never seen a Aimpoint CCO that went tits up either. Battery replacement is part of the PCI/PCC.



Seen some broken RCOs, mostly over torquing the traversing or elevating turrets. I have also seen a couple that have fogged up.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 4:14:09 AM EST
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 4:26:18 AM EST
-are the adjustments repeatable?
-will it hold zero under abuse?
-will the electronics continue to work under abuse?

Get those 3 right, and you're GTG.

Link Posted: 3/24/2009 4:27:55 AM EST
Originally Posted By jason934:
Being new to the AR, I bought this crappy red-dot for $60 at a gunshow. It was supposed to hold zero on .223 live fire but broke after a magful of rounds. The little mirror inside (shown) came lose from the glue. Should have used that money towards a real Eotech or Aimpoint.

For some reason I can't explain, this is the type of cheap red-dot you see in the Call of Duty 4 game, which is supposed to depict authentic gear. Please tell me our military does not use this crap!1

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk218/ironbyron_2008/DSC02036.jpg




They use the colt c-more tactical sight. Similar but not the same. Just like Aimpoint versus clones the colt is heavy duty.

[url=http://www.tjgeneralstore.com/CRWB_1.jpg[/url]
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 4:37:51 AM EST
Originally Posted By ChromeLined:
Check out the vortex strike fire...all the options of an aimpoint but batterie life is only 2000 hours but that makes the rugged $140 red dot 2x the life as an Eotech.I have used mine through 2 classes so far this year and its been pretty rugged so far.With Acogs theres nothing like em..batterie free and extremely rugged.


Um...this is the dumbest aimpoint clone yet. All the same junk you get with a chinese verison, except you pay 4x the amount. Get real, this is the same copy junk that people complain about. Look at the weak mount and just the whole package...ug.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 4:44:30 AM EST
Biggest reason they cost so much is the same reason Hummers cost so much. Our government is buying them and contractors know they can over price them so long as they do it for everyone. I don't doubt any of these sights are quality optics. I do know that a high price does not equate to high quality. I have Simmons scopes that have taken over 700 rounds of 300 Win Mag without any problems. I also have sent back Leopolds and Nikons for repair with far less rounds off of rifles chambered in 30-06 and 270. Battery life may be a concern. Its that reason I decided I do not want optics that depend solely on a battery. If the battery is dead I still want crosshairs that don't disappear.

Sorry, A high dollar sight does not guaranty your life is any safer. Proper training and lots of practice are far more important. You can be killed just as easy with a high dollar sight as you can without one at all.

As far as the Rolex comparison, our company gives them out as a reward for thirty years of service. So far 3 of the 12 given out have already had to go back to Rolex for repairs because they did not keep time. Repairs that cost more than the average watch by the way. I have cheap digital watches that have been going more than 5 years with their original batteries and still keep perfect time. My $70 Pulsar watch has also outlasted 3 of those 12 Rolex watches already.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 5:05:41 AM EST
Originally Posted By boaman88:
Sorry, A high dollar sight does not guaranty your life is any safer. Proper training and lots of practice are far more important. You can be killed just as easy with a high dollar sight as you can without one at all.



You are absolutely correct in your assertion. However, paying more money for something with a proven track record does give you more peace of mind that your optic won't fail on you and that when you purchase more than 1-they will be very similar in specification and quality. So your Simmons has taken under a 1000rnds of Magnum recoil-big deal. Is it impact tested before it goes out the door to be certain there is no reticle shift? Is it tested to ensure that its adjustments are true throughout the entire magnification range? Is it checked for resolution and what is the acceptable resolution? Is the adjustment mechanism made of cheap brass and prone to wear? There are reasons that some optics cost more than others and it's not because of the "greedy" companies looking to make a bigger profit.

I have a 3-9x Simmons that I've had on my deer rifle for over 20yrs and it's worked just fine-but it's sighted in and I only touch the adjustments with the changing of my load. Otherwise, they don't get touched. Crank on the knobs a bit, drop it off a roof, expose it to intense pressure and I'll all but guarentee that it will fail. The bottom line is that it might be a nice deer scope, but if it fails you shouldn't be surprised or complain. If you chose to use that scope in the defense of yourself or others, yes I'd call you a fool.

Link Posted: 3/24/2009 5:19:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/24/2009 5:36:14 AM EST by SamD]
I have a Tasco Red Dot, a Eo552 and a Comp M2. They are all good sights. Here are what I see as advantages to the more expensive sights:

Much better battery life for the expensive scopes.

The Tasco drains the battery even when it is off. If you let it sit, the battery will die. The more expensive scopes don't drian the battery, or in the AP's case it lasts for years on low power.

The Tasco will not shut itself off if accidentally leave it on, so the battery dies. The 552 will shut itself off. The AP lasts for years even if you leave it on.

The 552 uses easy to find AA batteries, and there is a version of the Comp that does too. The Tasco batteries are hard to find and expensive.

The more expenive scopes have a brighter sight picture, especially the 552. I have hunted with the Tasco, and the sight picture is dark enough that it is hard to pick up targets.

The more expensive scopes have much brighter dots, which is very useful on a sunny day. The Tasco is pretty good in this regard, but on a bright day it can be hard to pick out.

The more expensive scopes have better mounting options. The Tasco mount is kind of a joke.

The more expensive scopes have better controls, which are easier to manipulate. The Tasco controls are such that you could be trying to turn up the power on the scope and end up turning it off. That could be bad.

The more expensive scopes work better with night vision.

I can't speak as to durability or quality, as none of them have failed me. I assume the more expensive scopes could handle a bump better, but none of them get abused much so I really can't say. I assume the more expensive scopes are better at handling the wet too, but again I have not had reason to test this.

Really, the Tasco is a good scope for $30. It is certainly better than some of the other cheap ones I have tried. The more expensive scopes are 10-15 times more money. They are not 10-15 times better in any particular way, but there are 10-15 ways in which they are better. There are just a large number of fairly incremental imporovements. I'd say a 552 or Comp M2 is definately worth it, especially if this is something you are going to bet your life on.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 5:51:31 PM EST
Ive seen arguments about the price of the optic due to DOD testing and R&D etc... etc.... etc.... I have also heard others on here state that if you were to risk your life and the life of others to cheaper optics in combat, your are a fool. Well, here are two things to consider.

1. For one year in Iraq, I would take an educated guess that the military (Army/Navy/Spec Ops) probably bought upwards of 250,000 ACOGs for 1200 a peice. Now with that, you probably have another 50,000 written into the contract for replacements and another 20,000 worth of parts for repair. You do the math, but I would venture to say that with that one purchase alone, the R&D and the DOD Testing requirements have all been topped and paid for several times over. The rest is all profit. The tooling is complete and at this point, it is just how many you can crank out paying your emplyees as close to minimum wage as possible. And, that is just on year. Figure what they would probably make over the course of ten years. I would venture to say if we weren't at war, ACOG wouldn't be able to charge 1200 for very long and get away with it.

2. During my days in Iraq, most grunts on the ground didn't have any optics on thier rifles and most were never issued ACOGS or EOTECHs. I don't know what they are carrying now, but when I was in Iraq if I were to use optics, they had to be paid for by me or my family members. My unit and all the other units I worked with and around did not have optics. Snipers, Army Rangers and Spec Ops were issued optics and I think many Marines were issued ACOGs. But, other than that, no one had optics. It was always Iron sights. So, if you were fortunate to be able to order optics and have them sent to you or have your family buy them and send them to you then, maybe you would have optics. So, for those that talk about risking your life and the life of others being fools, they need to carry thier happy ass over seas and do some time on the ground with iron sights ONLY and then maybe they can come back here and run thier mouth about optics in combat. Then they might realize that in combat anything that can possibly give you the upper hand is a bonus wether it is a 1200 sight or a 100 dollar sight. If it works it's priceless, if it doesn't it's left laying in the sand. I would have been more than happy to have a 100 sight in Iraq. It would have been much better than the iron sights we were stuck using the whole time I was there. We didn't have Larue or any other "Brand Name" items. Duct tape, 550 cord and 1" nylon strap went a long way.
Link Posted: 3/24/2009 6:11:42 PM EST
I am surprised it has only been mentioned once in this thread. The parallax in the cheap dots is terrible. If you don't center your eye you are not aiming to the same point, and centering your eye is
a skilled guess. With the aimpoints and eotechs if the dot is on the target, the gun is on the target. Aside from all of the quality issues.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top