AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ACOG Clone? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/17/2006 10:31:20 AM EDT
|
I was curious as to anyones thoughts on the ACOG clones. I am not going to be using it for combat (or at least i hope not to). The cost of the ACOG is quite expensive but I can see why they are worth it, and they have a great reputation for being durable. But my question is a clone for $160 worht it compared to the $1000 of an ACOG? I am open to all comments and I am not partial to either one right now. Thanks guys! |
|
I find it amazing that a site that displays "AR15.Com IS PROUDLY SPONSORED BY: Bushmaster, Armalite, and Trijicon", which means they accepted advertisment money, still allows threads like this to exist. As for your questions, the above posted link covers them, and the many opinions irt the topic... |
IMHO< locking it wouldn't be the way to go. Even here on ARFCOM we have freedom of speech, ans second of all, not everybody can afford a real ACOG. 
|
|
This thread should be locked and probably will be locked and hopefully I won't be seen as the reason or cause... But there really only needs to be one active thread on the ACOG clones. The other one is still alive and kicking. Since this thread doesn't ask any new questions or address any new issues, it's just a DUPE 
|
|
Guys it was just a question and I am new so please relax. After seeing what everyone else had to say I have decided to go with a real ACOG. I didn't mean to piss anyone off about my post so I apologize. Since we are on the topic of sponsors on the board then why do I see stuff about RRA and other companies? Should we lock those threads as well because its a competitor or a "knock off" of some other company? Wasn't Colt the first company to manufacture the AR-15 anyways? So all others are knock offs right? Ponder that and ream my ass later |
Armalite was the first to mfg the AR15, not Colt. Also, most AR15s are made to the same standards, more or less. Knock off means a cheap imitation that only bears a resemblance to the original, but is not as durable or as reliable. Let me show you how silly that analogy is. Real ACOG - $800+ Knockoff ACOG - $150 Colt AR15 - about $1000 Bushmaster AR15 - about $850 Self Built Stag AR15 - about $600 Not much of a difference in price, is there. The fake ACOG only looks like an ACOG. All AR15s (except Hesse and Vulcan) are more or less the same product. |
Is it a true copyright violation? I mean is Trijicon pursuing these people that make the copies? If that's the case, you're absolutely right. |
| freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. This website is owned by somebody else, if you say something they don't like they can delete it (should and can are 2 different things however). If you want to be able to say anything you can purchase your own website. |
|
Well maybe I should have worded it different, but the site is proudly sponsored by Bushmaster, Armalite and Trijicon. We're allowed to talk about Colt, RRA, Olympic and everything else, why not a non-ACOG? I don't need to purchase my own website, I purchased a membership to this one, and nowhere, did I see that I wasn't allowed to talk about knockoff ACOGs. If he wants to ask about fake ACOGs, let him! |
 You ruffled no one's feathers. Never be afraid to ask a question - this is only the internet after all. In my opinion "clone" optics are junk. I don't care so much about copyrights as I do about quality. |
How about this e-mail response.....
That is straight from Trijicon, the following link is a related story covered here. www.ar15.com/content/news/story.html?id=64
So yes it is, and has been being persued. So again I'l state that is baffles me that some of you gleefully proclaim you support the theft of copyrighted material, so long as it benefits you. That is some sad stuff and speaks volumes unto your character. So attempt to justify it in any way that you can, but in the end it it is still theft.
|
|
I'm fucking glad to see this finally. Now the guys with the FACOGs will think theirs are worth even more now and consider them even better deals... Oh and trying to state that all non-Colt AR15s are clones is a bad way to get the morning started... All AR15 "clones" are built to non-patented specifications and tolerances. They are not busted open with a hammer and backwards engineered by a bunch of googly-eyed chinamen. THAT's the difference! |
|
Well, there you have it, looks like Trijicon is after the manufacturer, good for them. Still doesn't change anything to the fact that questions can be asked about a certain item, real or knock-off. Perhaps you remember that the original poster wanted some feedback on the knock-off vs. the real deal. Why use up the bandwith with your copyright argument? You're right, it is theft, but that wasn't the question. I guess the real vs. knockoff has been discussed very extensively in the past, so no sense in starting over. I'm really glad that you managed to figure out my character, even though I didn't say anything about wether I thought it is right or not to buy a knock-off. |
Read the thread before you come to conclusions. 
|
|
Jesus christ.. let see we got Narcs and whiners in this thread ,, yeehaw.. i feel like im on glocktalk.. fake acog or not.. who cares.. its the individuals accuracy.. and actually the accuracy with the clones are not bad at all. btw , i like my lil googly eyed chinaman RRA.. im gonna get him to send me an eggroll launcher next week. |
you have awful f*cking reading comprehension skills. The chinamen comment was NOT regarding to how RRAs are built but to how knockoffs are built. I explained how RRAs are made according to plans and the CLONES of optics are backwards engineered. Regarding your first red comment- bogus said this:
Like I said before- learn to read punani! You are too eager to argue and instead of reading and understanding what you are responding to, you just blindly respond without anything to say. |
you have poor reading skills as well. Once again to make it more clear- "All AR15 "clones" are built to non-patented specifications and tolerances." meaning that they can be made identical in every way and therefore just as good. "They are not busted open with a hammer and backwards engineered by a bunch of googly-eyed chinamen. THAT's the difference!" Now I'm saying that AR15 "clones" are built according to plans and not backwards engineered overseas in China. These optic clones are not made from Aimpoint's or Trijicon's patented ideas and copyrighted plans. Real versions are broken open and then the Chinese and Japanese examine the insides in order to copy them. Sorry if I sound condescending now but I thought it was pretty clear before. It ought to be clear now. I never even mentioned RRA before... |
You mean it's a CLONE?!?!!?!? 
|
|
No, Clones are exact copies. The thrads are not. Actually, the knockoff optics shouldn't be called clones. They look the same but don't work exactly the same. They'd be clones if they were only for looks but everyone swears they work well at the range so they are obviously not just for looks... |
Quite honestly.. if it looks smells and feels like a rock, its prolly a rock.. maybe not a real rock perhaps petrified dog dung, but i bet if it hit you hard enough it`ll hurt just the same.. :) theres an analogy for ya.. chew on that apple. |
|
Joesph.. LOL You sit here and belittle users behind the security of your monitor like a Child. You need to check yourself you have an issue,. and i think others see it quite openly. I would hope you start thinking about what your going to type befor you do next time. You pick arguments and get pissy when someone counters your relplies. For your information einstien the username Ripped was already taken on this site, there fore i settled for a close second. If your ever up for manning up.. Orlando is not that far away. :) I remain.. |
|
JosephR, Sorry I was so fast to judge your post, got a bit jumpy I guess, I thought you were quoting from what I had said, and I was wrong. Cyclic240B, You're right, it is theft. I was having a bad bad day, I guess I had to argue with someone, not about wether it was theft or not, but... I don't know anymore...  I'm going to shut up now. If it makesa any difference, I would personally save up my money a little longer and buy a real ACOG, because I know it's the best quality, and I support the manufacter in their fight against those stinkin' NcStar-gunshow quality-assclowns. -Out- |
|
Here is a section directly from the Trijicon site talking about how they threatened NcStar with legal action if they didn't stop production of the clone. The section is called "TRIJICON® PURSUES LEGAL ACTION AGAINST ACOG® PATENT VIOLATION" and is located towards the bottom of the page. http://www.trijicon.com/whats_new.cfm |
Actually I was calling the thread a "clone". Looking for a little irony here folks, help me out. Fact is that there aren't likely many people here who can actually say whether Trijicons intellectual property has been stolen. At face value it sure seems that way, but that's what all those patent and civil attorneys get paid for. You would be surprised at how colsely something can be copied and not be considered theft of IP. On the other hand things you may think aren't really that similar can be. It's up to how well the patents were written, how the attorneys present the case and the subjectivity of our legal system. Anyone remember the Apple/Macintosh vs. Microsoft Windows case? Many people still believe that Bill Gates stole Steve Jobs idea... where did jobs get it? There are truly very few "new" ideas out there, everyone is getting their inspiration from somewhere. We can debate all day about the moral side of it and never get anywhere, until the court makes a ruling, make your own decision. In this particular case I'm not sure I personally would feel good about buying one from a moral standpoint because Trijicon aparently feels there is enough infringement that they have a case against NcStar... then again Colt probably thought the same thing about Bushmaster using the M4 name. As a side note it's always interesting to me that some people will get pretty bent over something like this (usually the guy who spent $1k on something that someone else just spent $150 on) which at this point I haven't seen any legal ruling on, but then they don't think twice about cheating on their taxes or hooking up their own cable TV or keeping the pack of toilet paper from WalMart that the cashier forgot to ring up. - I don't know anyone on here well enough to make that judgement, but have seen it before. |
|
"...and have not been researched, tested nor manufactured according to Trijicon’s stringent quality control standards." So was that why I had to send my brand new TA-31 back to the factory because the adjustment knobs didn't work? I'm a fan of Trijicon products, but when you charge people a grand for a scope, there is no reason it should need to be returned to the factory the first time it is used. On the other hand... my acog knockoff that I just recieved isn't exactly perfect out of the box either... 0 for 2, maybe I just have bad luck? |
It's equally valid to ask "why does this cost $1000+?" of the Trijicons... Trijicon has to price the ACOGs to get back the money they invested in R&D to come up with it. For NcSTAR to undercut them because they just have to cover the materials because Trijicon did all the R&D for them isn't fair. That's why patents exist. Obviously Trijicon thinks NcSTAR is infringing on their patent(s); regardless of what you or I think of the morality of it, only a court can decide whether it's legal for NcSTAR to sell their version. I suspect they have a case against NcSTAR if the guts were identical. The other versions with different internals probably not, though they might have a case if the style/shape is ruled as a trademark. For me, the only reason to get an ACOG is for the BAC, so there's no point in buying a clone that doesn't have that. That rules out all of the clones I know about. If I just wanted a 4x scope for under $150 I could buy a better scope in a normal shape. But for somebody who wants the ACOG look and is willing to pay for that instead of optical quality, let them. Nobody should be forced to pay 8x as much for quality they don't need if they don't want to. |
Hey! I pay all my taxes and don't cheat the cable company. I don't buy CDs so I listen to the radio. I'm not one of those guys. |
|
Dammit, Mike_L, that's the best response I've heard yet in all of this whining! Good Job! For me, the only reason to get an ACOG is for the BAC, so there's no point in buying a clone that doesn't have that. That rules out all of the clones I know about. If I just wanted a 4x scope for under $150 I could buy a better scope in a normal shape. But for somebody who wants the ACOG look and is willing to pay for that instead of optical quality, let them. Nobody should be forced to pay 8x as much for quality they don't need if they don't want to. |
|
Why are people caring what other people want to spend their money on? Why are people emailing trij to narc off a facog? If its what you can afford, then get it! Trij are big boys, they can handle their biz without little kids getting involved. It amazes me to see people so angry about others choices of optics. Its about HOW you shoot, not WHAT you shoot....Remember? |
|
What about the "BUSHNELL TROPHY 1X32" OOOH the ACOG Nazi's are gonna be pissed! Bushnell Trophy 
|
|
Nice retort! Not everyone can be a cool as you I guess, It took me a long while to save up to get a cog, but I would have used a facog untill I could have purchased a real one. Its just I was stuck somewhere where my shit was issued and didnt have a choice.... Dont forget PC-commando, its HOW you shoot not what. Theres your lesson for the day.
|
doesnt look like that one has any magnification though. |
| That Bushnell is a red-dot like an Aimpoint, just in an ACOG-shaped tube. Trijicon wouldn't have a patent case on that since it's not a magnified optic and wouldn't have any features in common like the internal lenses/prisms for the magnification, reticle, fiber optics, tritium, or anything else. They could maybe make their case on the trademarked shape/style, assuming a court would agree that the "ACOG shape" is unique enough to be trademarked. |
I would guess that anyone who goes back through this thread, and reads what you wrote, will know a lecture when they see one... |
|
The only people that have any "right" to be upset about the clones is Trijicon. They are not hurting anyone else. And lets not try and fool anyone that those with 1000.00+ optics don't like to brag about what they have. I have seen numerous posts about whats a good optic for me for under 400.00. And guess what they first responses are........I have seen things like..... I like my nightforce 1-4x for 1200.00. Why would you even put that response to that question unless it is to brag to others about what you can afford. This seems to happen to almost every post about budget optics that I see. |
[/evil capitalist]
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ACOG Clone? (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor