AR Sponsor
Posted: 7/2/2006 11:14:28 AM EDT
|
whats the deal with this new bushnell. anyone have this? http://www.thstore.com/thstore/Bushnell/73-0132P.jpg heres the link to the site |
|
I have one but they are not really all that close to the acog. Work great though and unlike the airsoft stuff floating around these are ment to be used on real firearms. Profile is similar. If you have any other questions I will do my best to answer them. If you want a pic of it mounted shoot me an email. |
How is it as far as parallax, accuracy, ease of sighting in? Have you done a review on it? Email inbound as I would like to see the set up. |
How's the eye relief? The specs (IIRC) claimed it's about Paladin |
|
Ok sorry for the delay I couldn't find my charger It weights 12.7oz on a postal scale         It should be noted that on a RRA tactical carry handle it will not mount well as it tends to hit the rear site no matter how you do it. Also you will notice that while mounted on an ARMS 50M if mounted in the bi-level area it gives a perfect co=witness settup. The reticle for this optic can be found here It is perfectly flush with the frount site post when being used in conjunction with iron sites. Even when off the clarity is far superior to anything at the same price level when looking for similar optics. It should be noted that the unit is also make in Korea. However unlike most airsoft replicas. This optic is and was designed for use on REAL firearms. Not to mention the lifetime warranty if anything ever goes wrong with it. Also at 300 meters with wolf .55 grain FMJ I can hit the steel hanging target at ETRPC all day long. It's aprox 12 x 24 steel plate hung from a steel frame. My .02 |
No magnification, but a simple reticle kinda thing...  So its really just a fancy and or heavy red dot sight. And since it has no magnification eye relief is not an issue... |
|
I have one on EE. I bought it for a PTR but that rifle doesn't work well with this unit. I put it on my AR just to try it out and it seems to point real nice with both eyes open. The dot in the reticle is small enough to hit targets out to range without difficulty. I never thought of mounting it forward of the upper. I might have to try that out. I can e-mail pics out to anyone who wants them just drop me an e-mail. I have some from behind the rifle from a firing position. I don't know how to post pics thought. [email protected] Retail was suppose to be around $200 and I bought mine for $190. It seems to be built real well but I have only had it out to the range twice. I am happy with it at this price point. The only reason I am selling mine is because there are so many things I need and I think I am going to pop for an Elcan when it becomes more available. For anyone who buys one. There are a couple of screws holding the unit to the mount make sure those are tightened and locktite them. The first time out I could not figure why it wouldn't hold zero until I found those screws loose. After that she was just fine out to 100 yards. Also I think it will be cool if Trijicon sues Bushnell. |
So exactly how would Trijicon have any basis for a lawsuit? The only feature this Bushnell shares with an ACOG is the angled front. And if you're so offended by Bushnell's perceived theft of someone else's idea, why did you buy one? |
Because ANYTHING that looks even remotely like a taci-cool high dollar product must be a full blown clone and Must be sued by the manufacturer of said HSLD product.... 
|
|
Trade dress. Any reasonable person would look at that and see a high degree of similarity with the ACOG. They have a lot more in common than just the angled front - parts of the back, the section around the body behind the objective lens, the position of the turrets, the location of the mount, and so on. Even more damning is that all of these things add useless weight and size to what is a simple 1x red dot optic, and so are purely cosmetic. |
| Indeed it does. But this instance is about as blatant as you can get. Convergent evolution, so to speak, can make products look similar, but trade dress is often about non-functional things. No way in hell you can say Bushnell just 'happened' to come up with something that looks so close to an ACOG. |
So by your definition just about anything can be considered a rip-off of something that came before. Every spy story is a "clone" of James Bond, so Ian Fleming's estate should sue anyone who has written a similar novel or produced a film with characteristics remotely associated with 007. Ford should have hauled every car manufacturer into court because they all "stole" the intellectual design of a sheetmetal-surrounded radiator pioneered by Dearborn in 1932. I can go on ad nauseam but I think my point is clear. Oh, by the way, was Trijicon the first scope manufacturer to use a chevron aiming point? Nope. Whichever German optical company that did should rake 'em over the legal coals! 
|
|
It appears you do not understand what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about a generic concept of "ripping off", I'm talking about trade dress. The content of a novel has no "trade dress", however perhaps you could point to a distinctive shape for the book. Similarly, a chevron reticle has nothing to do with trade dress either. It's a purely functional feature. To quote some lawyer types courtesy of Google -
A perfect example of trade dress -- the distinctive shape of the Coca-Cola bottles. The reason I'm saying this instance is blatant is because Bushnell did not in any way need to make that scope look like an ACOG - on the contrary, it actually hinders function by adding unnecessary size and weight. The angled front is of course functional as a sun shade, and this is not the only scope that uses one, however the similarity does not stop there. Any reasonable person will look at that and conclude that the Bushnell optic was meant to look like an ACOG. Perhaps Bushnell cut some sort of deal with Trijicon; I have a hard time believing they would do something so boneheaded otherwise. |
I didn't pick it up but ran across it on Midway's website and they have it listed for $155. Bushnell MP |
|
I have one at work and was going to try it out. A good deal on a Leupold came along and it had to wait. I looked it over and it seems well built other than the cheap nuts and studs the Bushnell uses on there scope rings. I has the same two bolts underneath like the Trijicon I wonder if the spacing is the same? If so a better mount can be used. I may buy it this weekend if I can slide it by the wife. I bought a AR10 this week and she is going to shit. |
WTF......... 
|
| As Easy-E was pointing out, unless the bolts/screws on the bottom match the spacing of an acog it would be difficult to mount it on a carry handle. I imagine you could fabricate something with a few of the proper tools and an existing mount. The front sight post can be seen through the optic but some people don't seem to mind that, I imagine its the same with an eotech. It kinda bothers me so I am moveing to flip up posts. I ussually use a reflex sight and have gotten real accustomed to that over the years. What was difficult for me to get used to with this Bushnell is it presents more "scope" in your field of vision with both eyes open than what I am used to. I managed to mount mine with my A.R.M.S. flip up sights in place on a flat top, the scope has to overhang the front of the upper reciever by one space though. |
I personally like to try new gun items out. I work at a store that has a gun dept and people ask about these items. I can be the grumpy bastard at the gun shop and say "If you don't spend 800.00 on optics its junk" or actually try the product and give a good or bad review. I personally have some higher end optics and have stooped low enough to buy a Barska Swat and one of Jacks EE Aimpoint copies. I don't see a problem with it if it works. |
The problem is that, even if it works, it is way over-sized and over-heavy for a no-magnification red-dot sight.  That is all I was alluding to -- not its cost, not any "clone" bias, not any concerns over "trade dress." The product itself just doesn't make much sense TO ME... YMMV, and I hope they/you sell a billion of them (I like the Bushnell company and most of its products).  Me, too.
|
What I hope is more feed back like your is sent to Bushnell. It wouldn't be that big of deal to add more magnifacation and shed some weight. The bad part if they make these improvements and become a good seller your trade dress thing will happen. |
I'm not concerned with the resemblance to the ACOG (other than the slight misrepresentation). But, for something in that weight range I'd expect magnification. With Bushnell's resources, there should be plenty of money to hire a decent R&D staff who can come up with something better than the competition (and perhaps secure a mil-contract of their own). Eotech--Holosight Acog--this thing I need a lightweight, variable powered 1x5, well constructed, long battery life (if any at all), water/fog resistant, with decent eye-relief. and it should cost less than $300 |
AR Sponsor