AR Sponsor
Posted: 6/26/2008 12:35:37 PM EDT
|
Has anyone herd of these? Im looking for a EOtech clone at a low price and found one of these and had never herd of it, a lil help? Thanks |
Big +1 An Aimpoint clone is a cheaper red dot that looks the same. Red dot technology has been around a while. EOtechs are a totally different beast. Any type of 'clone' is just a look-a-like. It is not the same technology. |
Bushnell Holosight... |
I understand it. To some people their AR is just a range toy for punching paper and shooting cans. For their purposes a Tacpoint, BSA, or Tasco red dot works just as well as a high end optic for a fraction of the price. Those people don't care if an Aimpoint battery lasts 20 times longer, or that you can beat the hell out of it and it will probably still work. If it's just a toy, why spend another $500-$1000 on a military grade optic when they could use that money to buy a second toy? Think about it this way; Of all the people that spend $50,000 on a Corvette a very small fraction of those will actually drive it 180 MPH on a track. Those who do may spend another $50,000 on mods, upgrades and drving classes to get the most out of their performance car. The vast majority, however, will be happy to have a cool looking ride that they will never drive over 75 MPH. |
| I suspect that most folks who buy cheap optics have never tried good ones so as to even know the difference. Lower end stuff might work OK in optimum light, and with delicate handling, but start banging stuff around and/or using it in reduced lighting, and the cream rises to the top. |
I strongly disagree......they will most likely take it up past 100mph at least once. I am one of those people who has bought value line optics in the past. I still refuse to put a $500.00 optic with no magnification on an AR. It is a personal choice based on use, my plinker will never be called upon to enter a war zone...tin foil beanies, please be quiet...nor will it ever be subjected to a cubic yard of mud and sand in the action. It is a plinker and a $200.00 low magnification scope made by a reputable manufacturer is all it will ever be likely to see. That said, I did not hesitate to put a $400.00 scope on my varmint rig. I feel that once you hit a certain price point in optics you have to factor in the law of diminishing returns. Yes the $1500.00 scope or the $500.00 red dot sight are better and have fantastic features, but for me and many others we need to be careful to evaluate what is the best optic for our intended use and not waste the coin on redundancy we will never need. I'm not saying go cheap, but top of the heap is often not necessary either. Lc |
The difference is they still have a real Corvette, not a "clone" Corvette. Even if they never go 180MPH they still have a safe, properly functioning vehicle. If they had a clone the wheels would fall off and the seat would go thru the floor the first time they sat in it. Clones are cheap copies for a reason. |
Was just offering a cheaper option, that's all. |
not a cheaper option, different model. same technology from the same company. |
That's all good, but it IS a cheaper option. You can get a Bushnell Holosight for $250. A new Eotech costs about a hundred more. I'd personally rather buy the Eotech. But whether it's made by the same company or not, the Bushnell is cheaper, and hence, a cheaper option. We're arguing semantics, here. Not my intent. |
no they are different models. they are the same technology but different features. the "SAME" sight in a bushnell would be the same price. they do not have the same features. the bushnell is a bare bones stripped down sight. it's like comparing a chevy sprint to a corvette. Yea, same in theory but not the same in practice. |
You misunderstood the analogy. The $50,000 Vette is equivalent to the expensive AR15. Driving it up to 180mph is equivalent to using the AR for the nastiest, dirtiest, roughest, toughest shooting. |
I agree with you both on the optics part of the argument. I have a leupy 2 x 7 that costed 179 bucks. BUT I do have it in a larue mount. Which I didn't really need. All this stuff gets expensive for stuff you don't NEED. I would have been better off with the armalite mount and a scout rail. Or the scout rail and some rings. I shoot with irons more than anything. But it's fun to shoot magnified sometimes. I can see the wisdom in having a good red dot for defense. Like an Aimpoint. But I don't really feel it is a necessity. At this point. |
| See, part of the problem here is assumptions. people just assumed the OP was asking about this to put on an AR. I see no mention of the type of rifle it will be used on. I have cheap scopes and expensive scopes. would I put a $500 optic on a 10/22 plinker......no. would I put a $800 Leupold on a $1200 custom built 10/22, yes I have, even though that optic is now on another rifle. each has it's place and budget. |
well considering this is AR15.com and we primarily discuss ar15's without any other information that could easily be assumed. |
|
The bottom line. Some people would rather buy cheap chinese crap and there is nothing anyone can do to change their way of not thinking. I will never need a good scope> I will never use my AR in battle> It's good enough for range use. You NEVER know when to day will come that you will wish you didn't buy that junk. Buy the cheap chinese crap, no sweat of my nuts. |
That level of ignorance and stubborn thinking is really going to hurt you more than it'll hurt someone who buys a cheap optic. |
Uh huh.  You really need to explain that one.
|
Well, some people have other options for Self Defense and SHTF. Right now, my pistols are my go to Self Defense weapons. It's just that simple. Do I think an AR is better for self defense? In some ways yes. In some ways no. But that's not the point. The point is someone else may have a shotgun as their primary self defense weapon. Whether that's the BEST choice or not could be debated until the cows come home. But if that's what that certain person does, more power to them. So their AR is a range gun. Big whoop. Makes sense to me. |
|
I still don't see how others buying cheap crap is going to hurt me. I quit the cheap stuff years ago after I learned the hard way more than once that you get what you pay for. Either way, I don't give a dam what others do. Everyone wants it now, can't save a little longer and buy a quality product that supports American workers. No, it goes more like "I have $50 and really want a scope...that chinese scope will be good enough". |
To answer your question: I have not heard of that brand. I have one of the clones and it works very well on the range. But I wouldn't take it to Iraq. |
+1 another thing I see people with cheap optics at the ranges like ACOG look alikes and fake Aimpoints and they just want to look cool.. but they are so easy to spot it is just sad and you can tell by there shooting (it sucks).. |
"That'll never happen to me" |
Famous LAST words...right Aimless. I know you meant that to be sarcastic.  I am confused by some people when they say they will never need a quality this or that. Or I will never use it for combat. I guess they forget that we are at war right now, and you NEVER know what may happen tomorrow...or today. |
|
I learned long ago that my hard earned money is put to better use buying quality, once. Just about anything I buy, I look to buy the best I can afford. Even if that means saving up a little longer. ETA: Currently I am saving to get a flatop upper and an EOTech + Mount from LaRue for my Bushmaster. |
The fun part is when they do this and then come into your shop and bitch that the rifle will not shoot, when it is the POS optic that is the problem. THAT is annoying. |
Actually, Bushnell marketed the holosight for years before EOTech did. First there was the holosight 1 which was longer and had a smaller windoe, then came the holosight 2 which is what they sell today. Part of the deal with eotech is that they have to sell the sight the way it is without the armoured shield and some of the reticle option that eotech has. Eotech was born from special request by the army and other units the same way the Aimpoint m2 was. |
|
Stay away from clones. Spend the mony and buy the real thing. I got two Eotechs and could not be happier with them. |
WOW! |
Which is why I don't use cheap light and optics on my ARs. I've got a BSA and a Tasco red dot, both on .22s that I mainly use for teaching others to shoot. |
Well, yeah. Everyone knows that you can't possibly shoot good unless you spend more money on your optic than you did on your rifle. 
|
Yeah, I've seen guys that buy real nice, quality, expensive, weapons and have no idea how to use them. My Dad is one of them. He keeps a revolver for SD because he doesn't practice with the others and half the time forgets how to operate a pistol. Even though he's decent quality pistols. I kid you not, even the XD is hard for him to know how to use it. |
No, it's more akin to comparing a 350Z to a Skyline. And to stay on topic, cheapo optics are crap. |
In a thread espousing the advantages of quality hardware, it strikes me as ironic that non of those pics used to make the point contain anything remotely like an eotech, aimpoint, railed foreend, VFG, QR scope mount, collapsable stock, anything painted in FDE....  |
| The one big problem I see with the people that bash cheap optics is the implied assumption that buying, oh, say, just to pick randomly, an Eotech 557 will get you a solid product with the full support of a good company behind it. I know a lot of people here have lots of time in the sandbox or have otherwise pressure-tested their gear, but it would suck to assume your optic is GTG because it cost a lot, and then have it fail when the zombies come. |
EOTECH licensed the commercial version of the sight to bushnell while it was in development. the bushnell gen 1 site was made by eotech and only distributed by bushnell who rebadged the site. eotech did all warranty/service work as well. i have been shooting these site since they hit the market in aroun 96. IIRC the "eotech" was released with the development of the gen2 holosight. the eotech version was armored,waterproofed,NV compatible and had better run time on batteries. I have both a gen2 bushnell and and an early eotech and while they share the same base tech their are difference. http://www.eotech-inc.com/history.php Origins of the Holographic Weapon Sight In the late 50's ERIM researchers invented synthetic radar (SAR) to vastly improve imaging radar. Today, SAR is the primary sensor used by the US DoD to detect targets in darkness or under cloud cover. The basic concept of SAR is to record the reflected microwave field by beating it with a reference wave as the observation plane flies by the target scene-synthetically building a large radar aperture and thus increasing the image resolution. The ERIM researchers realized that the physics behind the synthetic aperture radar is identical to the holography concept published by Dennis Gabor in the late 1950's which won the Nobel prize. Holography is an optical process of wavefront reconstruction of a 3 dimensional object by recording the interfering patterns of light. In the early 60's the availability of a coherent, stable light source in the form of a helium-neon gas laser allowed the principles of the SAR technology to be applied to the creation and fabrication of a hologram. Leith and Upatnieks used the laser to reconstruct a waveform of a 3 dimensional object and astounded the world. Two events made the development of a compact holographic gun sight commercially feasible: the advent of low cost and compact solid state visible laser diodes (in the early 90's) and the development of production technology for fighter aircraft holographic head up displays. The original product concept for the holographic sight began in the late 1970's under research contracts by the US Air Force and Army for use on the helicopter gunships and anti-aircraft batteries. These prototypes were too bulky for use on small arms platforms and the component costs were too prohibitive to enter into any rationale production. In the early 80's, the perfection and implementation of holographic heads up displays in advance fighter aircraft was proved feasible and successfully deployed. These HUDs were very high quality, reflection holograms and were used for target acquisition, gauge reading, weapon system verification, etc. and ultimately improved the effectiveness of the fighter pilot. Further, the 90's have seen large and sustained volumes of laser pointers and other optical reading devices, which utilize visible diodes and the component costs plummeted. In 1995, ERIM formed a subsidiary, EOTech, Inc., to re-assess the potential for the holographic sighting technology. EOTech miniaturized the sophisticated sighting system into a compact and rugged package for use on small arms. The first generation holographic sight was successfully launched into the commercial market in January 1996. In January 2000, the second generation Holosight was released into the consumer market |
AR Sponsor