Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/26/2005 12:27:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/26/2005 12:27:58 PM EDT by Abbot_Hayes]
Link Posted: 11/26/2005 12:31:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Abbot_Hayes:
Are these any good?



I think you answered your question with the thread title


ACOG ripoff
Link Posted: 11/26/2005 3:00:04 PM EDT
+1......piece o crap!!
Link Posted: 11/26/2005 4:30:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/26/2005 6:44:38 PM EDT
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...
Link Posted: 11/26/2005 7:36:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 96_Bravo:
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.





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.
Link Posted: 11/26/2005 7:38:54 PM EDT
- CoC violation removed -
Link Posted: 11/27/2005 4:36:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Timanator:

Originally Posted By 96_Bravo:
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.





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??? hen


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?
Link Posted: 11/27/2005 5:57:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 96_Bravo:
Any suggestions on how to punish the scope as much as possible without damaging my rifle?



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.
Link Posted: 11/27/2005 5:58:23 AM EDT
"I'd buy that for a dollar!"

Sorry but had to get my Robocop quote in sometime.
Link Posted: 11/27/2005 6:35:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 96_Bravo:


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?




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.
Link Posted: 11/27/2005 10:26:28 AM EDT
Ask Photoman about testing optics.
Link Posted: 11/27/2005 12:10:50 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/27/2005 12:48:40 PM EDT
buy it and let us know how it holds up.
Link Posted: 11/27/2005 12:50:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/27/2005 12:56:26 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/27/2005 2:40:45 PM EDT
i might get one if it had the fiber optic lighting but it dosent have that either

dose it?????
Link Posted: 11/27/2005 3:23:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ops144:
i might get one if it had the fiber optic lighting but it dosent have that either

dose it?????



No, the TA01NSN doesn't either, just tritium.
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 5:48:00 PM EDT
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?

Link Posted: 12/1/2005 6:26:29 PM EDT
I don't know if they are specifically made for airsoft, but the local knife shop that has airsoft has these in stock?
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 6:35:23 PM EDT
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....
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 6:37:20 PM EDT
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).
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 6:40:01 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 9:16:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
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.

.




It's a 4x!!! How much glass do you need for that?
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 9:34:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/1/2005 9:34:42 PM EDT by blackjack333]
meh..ya get what you pay for.

he's the same guy selling knock off's here on EE
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 5:19:53 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 7:27:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Timanator:

It's a 4x!!! How much glass do you need for that?



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.
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 9:34:29 AM EDT
Anyone know if these will fit in a A1 carry handle if the "rail mount" is removed?
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 9:48:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2005 9:53:20 AM EDT by _DR]
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?
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 12:03:01 PM EDT
"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.
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 12:55:52 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 1:19:45 PM EDT
--Another CoC violation removed--


edited by Department of Precrime
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 4:50:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2005 4:53:37 PM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By Green0:
"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.



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?
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 4:51:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2005 4:54:53 PM EDT by Green0]
"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.
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 6:38:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Green0:
I think the real point isn't wether people have the $1000 but wether they want to waste it on something worth $450.




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.
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 7:08:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2005 7:12:00 PM EDT by 101ABN327]
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.
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 8:02:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2005 8:09:30 PM EDT by 96_Bravo]
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 :)
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 6:55:39 AM EDT
A(CL)OG...brilliant!
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 7:16:45 AM EDT
Pictures of links where we can see some specs?


Thanks for the review...

Link Posted: 12/3/2005 8:21:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Timanator:
Pictures of links where we can see some specs?


Thanks for the review...



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!
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 8:38:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2005 8:39:04 AM EDT by _DR]
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.
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 9:41:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2005 9:43:34 AM EDT by Green0]
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
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 10:19:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Green0:
The sight will last.






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.
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 11:09:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2005 11:10:01 AM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By Timanator:

Originally Posted By Green0:
The sight will last.






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.



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.
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 11:41:35 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 11:43:52 AM EDT
"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.
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 11:48:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2005 11:51:50 AM EDT by Green0]
"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.
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 4:31:15 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 6:07:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2005 6:08:46 PM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By Green0:



As far as I am concerned the ACOG is an inferior good.



I suppose you are entitled to your opinion.
Link Posted: 12/4/2005 1:24:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/4/2005 1:25:13 PM EDT by Green0]
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
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 5:28:59 AM EDT
Do any of the owners of the copy know if it will mount on an A1 carry handle?

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top