User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/16/2006 5:35:59 PM EDT
With so much cloning and look alikes out there, I don't know if this one has been posted.
Bushnell Trophy MP Red Dot Sight 30mm Tube Red and Green T 1x3 MOA Dot Reticle with Integrated Weaver-Style Base Matte Link ETA: This is the only info I could find. Link added. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2006 5:48:01 PM EDT
[#1]
Whats the price?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2006 6:02:40 PM EDT
[#2]
$154.99
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2006 7:00:50 PM EDT
[#3]
Oh man that's just TERRIBLE!
 It's like the T168 (or whatever), BUT it's a 1x red-dot! (well, red and green dot). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2006 8:14:59 PM EDT
[#4]
wow. I don't know what to make of this...
That's got waaay to much in common with an ACOG in the looks department for a simple red dot scope... At least the Clone Clowns who bought the Aimpoint knockoffs will at least kick themselves in the ass now- they could have had this!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 2:29:29 PM EDT
[#5]
My guess would be that it's a fluke. Bushnell's site sucks my @%&$ or else I'd email them and ask.
I'd be surprised if Bushnell would actually copy the ACOG to that extent. Midway has a bunch of pictures that don't match the product. Check out the Tasco Aimpoint knock off as well. I looked but I haven't seen a Tasco Aimpoint knock off anywhere but Midway. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 3:34:14 PM EDT
[#6]
Sorry, but isn't that Bushnells logo on the side? It sure isn't Trijicon's and I think it says "TROPHY" on top behind the adjustment turret.
It sure is a red dot with variable brightness. I'm not sure what you think that pic might be of, but it's definitely an ACOG clone for the  s out there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 3:43:00 PM EDT
[#7]
I blew the picture up, and I think it does in fact say Bushnell Trophy.  It has a large white blob effect to it though, so I could be wrong. Even more odd, is that the outward indents on the eye piece housing look like Chinese script.  I'm still amazed that Bushnell might be ripping off Trijicon. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 4:07:13 PM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 5:48:34 PM EDT
[#9]
I guess you can look at it in the sense that bushnell at least moved the acog clone back in relation to the mount to allow a cheeckweld other than nose to charging handle. That is about the only positive thing i can say about it.
So much for pride in one's own ability to create new products. edit for spelling |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 6:56:24 PM EDT
[#10]
I think that would be a cool little sight for a 9mm AR.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 7:04:44 PM EDT
[#11]
I'm looking at that sucker and after having owned a TA01 myself, I think this will be located in the same place relative to it's mount as the TA01. It even looks like the optic can be removed from the mount so it can be mounted inside the track of the carry handle. You can make out the thicker part of the blade of the base where it follows the profile of the carry handle... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 10:49:10 PM EDT
[#12]
Probably thought they would not be sued because Trijicon has no 1X scope that shape. They think unmagnified means a get out fo court free card. They will get their asses sued off faster than NcStar.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2006 10:57:58 PM EDT
[#13]
I wouldn't be caught dead with one of those on my weapon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 3:23:46 AM EDT
[#14]
Me niether. That thing's no where near $1000. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 4:26:40 AM EDT
[#15]
yeah, your right. I also didnt notice that this was a 1x magnification optic either. Guess that makes the whole eye relief/nose to charging handle a moot point anyway. Edit: typo |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 5:26:56 AM EDT
[#16]
Now I have to admit this is really silly. I mean why would anyone come out with a new reddot that is probably bigger and heavier than what is already out there. The only logic at all in this optic is to steal the ACOG's looks. There is no reason to have such a long body on a 1X reddot, and there is no reason to force the eyepiece that close to the rear. I usually defend the buyers of "clones" (but not the "clones" themsleves) but this is truly a step in the wrong direction. Bad form Bushnell... Bad form.
T |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 5:34:53 AM EDT
[#17]
Get it right, the tasco and the Burris XTS-135 are variations on the SPOT, not the Aimpoint. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 7:06:05 AM EDT
[#18]
someone said in a previous thread that patents cover internals and manufacturing processes and copyrights cover the looks. Maybe trijicon didn't copyright the looks though...
I for one wish they would have! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 12:05:59 PM EDT
[#19]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 12:07:21 PM EDT
[#20]
Huh? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 12:13:26 PM EDT
[#21]
The New tasco propoint is not an aimpoint knock off, it's a direct knock off of the SPOT which the same optic Burris requested "upgrades" on to make it useable for "tactical" shit and that they sell as the XTS-135. None of them are Aimpoint knockoffs or clones. The tacpoint and the other non marked optics that look like them in all outside physical aspects are clones or knockoffs of the Aimpoint. Physicaly they look exatly like an Aimpoint(though the Tacpoint is actually longer then the CompM) Hence my post, that the Tasco and Burris are SPOT not Aimpoint "knockoffs" Does that help folks. Or is it that difficult for yall to make the connection here? Well obviously it was to difficult. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 12:22:36 PM EDT
[#22]
Do you mean there is tiers of standards for ripping off other people's design? So just because the Burris, Tasco and SPOT dont look 100%(Only 99%) and have only 99% of the intended functions of the real Aimpoint, they are no longer a copy? And just because Bushnell only copied the exterior and didnt get the optics, reticle, (whatever els your criteria is in your eye), it is more of a Clone than the Tasco, Burris and SPOT? If we were to base it on that type of logic, then if I were to copy, lets say an M14 to the point where all parts interchange with the real thing and almost works as good as the real deal(Say a Norinoco?), than it's no longer a clone?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 12:29:34 PM EDT
[#23]
To paraphrase Lumpy, there are only so many ways you can make a red dot with a 30mm tube. All got fucking issues I swear. No the spot sure as hell isn't and aimpoint knockoff sorry but if you took a SPOT(has no markings) and Aimpoint(again with no markings) and a Tacpoint (with no markings) one can easily distinguish the diferance between the SPOT and the other two, and if you don't know the differeances(the major visable ones) between the Tacopoint and the Aimpoint yer going to have a hell of a time telling them apart. So since one can easily tell visualy that a SPOT and an AIMPOINT are not the same physicaly I'd say the SPOT sure is not a knock off. Oh and bad analogy with the Norinco M14/M1A thing because from my understanding, and what I read around here and what I hear at the range form M1A guys, Norinco M1A/M14s are better in most aspects the the Springfield M1A/M14. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 12:59:47 PM EDT
[#24]
I'm mad and taking my ball home.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 1:55:50 PM EDT
[#25]
It's obvious you have a bias in your love for the SPOT, but it is still a copy to a very noticeable extent. Many, many, many companies have been capable of producing a 30mm red dot that doesn't look like an Aimpoint in any way, so I fail to see your point on that issue. I guess the double battery module that Aimpoint has used for years upon years was actually a design first used by SPOT? Lord knows SPOT wouldn't try to copy the looks of an Aimpoint in any way.    I have no care about the SPOT, but it's obviously not this revolutionary new optical design you seem to think it is. That extra knob isn't to convincing to me, but in any case I'm sure the SPOT is great for a plinker as the people who sell it suggest. As I said, I have no issue with the SPOT, but don't be so naive as to say it doesn't replicate an Aimpoint in any way. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 2:37:35 PM EDT
[#26]
I got the comment. Moreover, it was pretty approriate. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 3:09:21 PM EDT
[#27]
it doesn't even have an extra knob. it's just been moved.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 3:24:04 PM EDT
[#28]
My bad. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 5:35:52 PM EDT
[#29]
Never said anything was revolutionary about the damn thing all I did was point out that physicaly it is different enough from an Aimpoint that it's not really a knockoff. That it infact has has two "knockoffs" of it's own. And there is no "extra" knob on it. if anything it acutally has one less "knob" on it then the aimpoint. The point being a knock off is going to be damn near and exact physical replica as possible, the tacpoint would fit that if yer talking aimpoints, the SPOT would not. Sorry but being an Aimpoint owner and user I don't look at a spot and think gee that looks like an Aimpoint. I have no bias, if anything i'm one of the most unbias people around here when it comes to this. I own a spot, I own a Tacpoint, I own an Aimpoint. I've beat on tacpoints,Ive beat on Aimpoints and EoTechs, Ive beat on the SPOT. What I have is direct knowledge of what each of these optics is capable of under abuse/conditions that 80% of shooters will never put them through. No bias. If someone asks for advice on a red dot I look for or ask about spesific things before I even say look at X,Y or Z. Hell the red dot I like the most i don't even own yet, I prefer the EoTech over everything else. So um ya no bias here. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 5:47:49 PM EDT
[#30]
I own a real ACOG, actualy did toss down the cash for one. However, I have been looking to get an inexpensive red dot for a plinker/range gun and actualy like the look of this one. At 154.00 i wouldnt feel bad when i tossed on some spray paint to camo the whole gun and optic. I for one know its not an ACOG, nor is it made to be an ACOG. Its a red dot that looks simialr to an ACOG !!! If it works and works well, i see nothing wrong with it. May just have to pick one up next month to beat around.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 5:54:50 PM EDT
[#31]
How much you willing tobeat it around? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 6:06:03 PM EDT
[#32]
My point was that the SPOT replicates the looks of an Aimpoint intentionally. While it may not be a completely correct clone of the Aimpoint, it has features that are obviously Aimpoint like that no other red dot has except for the ones cloning the Aimpoint and the Aimpoint itself. It is my personal opinion that the SPOT was intentionally designed to replicate the looks of an Aimpoint in some features. It may not be an exact clone, but it's obvious the SPOT designers took some cues from the Aimpoint. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 6:45:00 AM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 2:20:02 AM EDT
[#34]
If you're thinking I'm an "optics snop", you're VERY badly mistaken. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:34:15 AM EDT
[#35]
I sense a little sarcasm but that's a pretty bad analogy. Have you ever examined an ARMS mount with a QD lever? The first thing I noticed was the sharp blade of sheet metal that does the grabbing. From the pictures I have seen of LaRue stuff, they've done what I think ARMS should have done a long time ago. Very different products IMHO. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 2:59:01 PM EDT
[#36]
I like the reticle, too bad the whole thing isn't done in a less ghey package. Looks airsoft.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
