Why are self-powered reflex sights so expensive?

Raw tritium costs hundreds of millions of dollars per kilogram.

Because tritium is used in hydrogen bombs, so the AEC is very interested in who & how it gets used. I imagine that level of intrusion into doing business raises the cost of production substantially...

Having a mix of sights on both sides, it's not apples to apples compairing a Trijicon reflex to a BSA reddot.

Some of the Aimpoints are on par in my book and the price reflects it.

Surculus said:

Because tritium is used in hydrogen bombs, so the AEC is very interested in who & how it gets used. I imagine that level of intrusion into doing business raises the cost of production substantially...

Click to expand...

This is the correct answer.

I can't imagine the headache and expense involved in legally obtaining tritium in any meaninful amount.

Tritium is a byproduct of nuclear fission and as stated before, is used in hydrogen bombs. A terrorist getting their hands on a relatively small amount of tritium could be bad.......like "dirty bomb" bad.

From Wikipedia:

" The emitted electrons from the radioactive decay of small amounts of tritium causephosphors*to glow so as to make*self-powered lighting*devices called*betalights, which are now used in firearm night sights,watches,*exit signs, map lights, knives and a variety of other devices. This takes the place of*radium, which can cause*bone cancer*and has been banned in most countries for decades. Commercial demand for tritium is 400*grams per year[3]*and the cost is approximately US $30,000 per gram.[31]"

I think it explains it. The night sights are just small handgun iron sights and yet cost $100+. Now we are talking about adding tritium to an optic that at the cheap level is $90 retail before tritium. The $400+ models you are talking about are delivering you $400 worth of value through their ruggedness and function.

If the tritium just added $50 to the $90 cheapie making it $140...I would rather buy the $169 PA MD-ADS with 5 year battery life that won't wash out in bright light and can take one heck of a beating vs. a cheaper optic with some expensive glow in the dark stuff inside for a little less.

The market just isn't there for a battery-less optic in the $200-ish price range. The battery less optics aren't very popular because they don't work as well as the battery powered ones. Tritium is pretty dim and washes out easy with a weapon light and yet the weapon light isn't enough light for the fiber optic to work well.

Well, there's a problem - tritium sights get dimmer and dimmer over time. After 10 years you're most likely going to lose a good part of the initial brightness.
And replaicing tritium is neither cheap nor easy.

Battery-powered sights on the other hand - they have 5-8 years battery life and on the shelf they're going to work as long as the battery doesn't degrade (don't know how long the battery shelf-life is EDIT: OK, just checked, 10 years guaranteed for good quality cells) and replacing the battery is cheap and ridiuclously easy.

I just talked to a friend who's a small arms engineer for the DOD.

He says we haven't seen (and almost certainly won't see) entry level tritium optics for a few reasons: First, as already stated, the licensing requirements to obtain tritium in large enough quantities to use for manufacturing sights are a significant hurdle. Second, he's fairly certain the amount of tritium needed to illuminate a sight reticle is significantly more than the amount needed for night sights. Even with significantly more tritium than night iron sights, those optics still wash out in bright light. Third, number two is why most of those optics also have fiber optic as a means of illumination: It's not a backup to the tritium, rather, it's the primary source of reticle illumination in bright light.

Also, as already stated, tritium dims over time and must be replaced every ten years or less, and at significant expense, to keep the sight functional. He expects sights like ACOGs to actually be phased out in the near future. LEDs have become so cheap, efficient, and reliable, and batteries so energy dense, that anything larger than a rifle or pistol iron sight can hold a battery with enough energy to reliably provide significant run time.

Last, adding fiber optics to a battery powered sight only adds weight, size, expense, and complexity. It almost certainly wouldn't increase the reliability.

What about fiber optic only sights? I'd love a fiber optic powered daytime sight like those old shotgun sights from the 40s if it was priced reasonably.

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/nydar-reflex-sight/

A modern version of this couldn't be that hard to make, could it?

ugaarguy said:

Also, as already stated, tritium dims over time and must be replaced every ten years or less, and at significant expense, to keep the sight functional. He expects sights like ACOGs to actually be phased out in the near future. LEDs have become so cheap, efficient, and reliable, and batteries so energy dense, that anything larger than a rifle or pistol iron sight can hold a battery with enough energy to reliably provide significant run time.

Click to expand...

This will probably be how things go. Old school M16s occasionally had tritium front sight posts. I have only seen a handful still in service. Red dots replaced iron sights on issue rifles in the 2000s with battery life getting better all the time. The first red dot had to have battery replaced every couple of weeks with the new ones being left on for up to a year on the same battery. Night sights will be popular on handguns until red dot technology gets smaller, which won't take much longer.

What about fiber optic only sights? I'd love a fiber optic powered daytime sight like those old shotgun sights from the 40s if it was priced reasonably

Click to expand...

How about the 70s-vintage Weaver Qwik Point? It kind of strange-looking, but it's not hard to find in the $30-50 price range.

The Quik Point is certainly neat and a reminder that these things can be quite simple. I wonder if a modern, no-battery sight could combine something like the Quik-Point with an auxiliary glow-in-the-dark light source parallel to the fiber optic for night use? A green fiber optic would be brighter than red and better matched to the brightest, longest-lasting phosphor green light sources.

Click to expand...

Yes, I would say it's entirely possible. The "fiber optic" section of the Qwik Point is very similar to the "fiber optic" section of the old Normark Singlepoint sight (which incorporated tritium). A person could modify the Qwik Point to duplicate the Singlepoint's design.


...

bainter1212 said:

This is the correct answer.

I can't imagine the headache and expense involved in legally obtaining tritium in any meaninful amount.

Tritium is a byproduct of nuclear fission and as stated before, is used in hydrogen bombs. A terrorist getting their hands on a relatively small amount of tritium could be bad.......like "dirty bomb" bad.

Click to expand...

Not only that, but who is willing to sell tritium in large enough quantities to the Chinese companies pumping out the cheap red dots?

Sights

Very true about the half life of tritium sights.
I have a Trijicon RX01 reflex sight that I bought more than ten years ago. I like it very much....rugged and easy to use but the tritium illumination is way less now than new. Fortunately the fiber optic supplement helps to keep it functional.
Pete

I bought a tritium front sight post for about $65. Does this count?

From wikipedia:

"Commercial demand for tritium is 400 grams per year and the cost is approximately US $30,000 per gram."

Mark H.

Not only that, but who is willing to sell tritium in large enough quantities to the Chinese companies pumping out the cheap red dots?

Click to expand...

Bingo.

I *think* the only companies that can use tritium for the U.S. market are the ones in the United States, and those companies can't compete at the low end of the price spectrum with the low-end Chinese optics. U.S. companies can compete on the high end, where people are paying a premium for build quality, quality control, and features. So any sights using tritium are going to be well up the price scale, and at that price point you can get better performance (and comparable or better shelf life) from an Aimpoint-style battery-and-LED.

who is willing to sell tritium in large enough quantities to the Chinese companies pumping out the cheap red dots?

Click to expand...

The Chinese don't need to buy Tritium from the West when they can (and probably do already) make it on their own.

I *think* the only companies that can use tritium for the U.S. market are the ones in the United States

Click to expand...

Meprolight is an Israeli company that imports tritium illuminated illuminated optics and iron sights to the US.

Why are self-powered reflex sights so expensive?
Battery-powered sights with various sizes, shapes and colors of reticle exist in all price ranges, but the self-powered (no battery) ones with fiber optic/tritium day/night illumination from Trijicon, Meprolight, etc. are all very expensive, from $400 to thousands. Why is that? Why isn't anyone making an entry-level self-powered sight?


Fred;
If, (or when) you ever find out why "self powered" reflex sights cost "so much", please see if you can find out why half-way decent hearing aids cost "a LOT more"? (Like anywhere from $3,500 / pr to $10,000 / pr )

If you think having to pay $400 to $500 for a top quality Aimpoint or OPtech red dot sight is "excessive", try having to shell out $ 4,000 for two dinky little "thingies" that sit on top of your ears and are about half the size of the tip of your little finger. I'm presently thinking very seriously of shelling out about 4 Ben Franklins for an EOTech RMR, and compared to these 4K Danish hearing aids I HAD to have, I feel like the RMR is "almost" a bargain, when you consider the high quality that's involved.