Is a real aimpoint worth the extra $300+?

[Greywolf]

I see all these Aimpoint replicas/clones on Ebay for under $50 - sometimes even $30 with shipping. I have had a Tacpoint in the past that was about $90 and it seemed OK.

So, anyone have any experience with the clones vs. the real Aimpoint? I'm not going into combat, just using my 5.56mm AR at the range, etc. Would I be just wasting an extra $300+ getting the REAL Aimpoint vs. one of the clones if my usage is going to be pretty controlled?

 

[Chris Rhines]

Get the Aimpoint (if you dig Aimpoints, that is.) Reliability and accuracy issues aside, owning a well-made, high-quality piece of gear is its own reward.

- Chris

 

[eab]

From what I have found in buying gear, and guns, and knifes. You get what you pay for. I picked up a cheap Camelbak imatation for Christmas. Couple months latter I am shelling the money out for a real Camelbak.

Same thing, no. Is an Aimpoint worth $300? To some people maybe, to you I don't know. Its not worth $300 to me so I don't have one. I will just make do with lesser gear.

 

[Old Dog]

Is a real aimpoint worth the extra $300+?

In my experience, yes. And I don't take my personal rifles into combat either, but then, I do like it when they actually stay firmly mounted on the rail, and the reticle actually stays together, and the poorly-sealed tube doesn't get filled with condensation ... But I suspect many here (including myself) had to find this out the hard way. I've been the victim of cheap knock-off optics that looked good at the gun-show table, only to find out on the first trip to the range why they were $300 less than the real thing. And yes, the real EOTech is worth far more than the cheap holographic sights, and there's nothing as good as the real ACOG ...

 

[Beren]

If your life isn't going to depend on the quality of the gear, I wouldn't see a point in spending $300 more than you have to spend for basic functionality. I have an Aimpoint M3 on my AR, and a BSA 30mm red dot on my Marlin 60SS. If you *WANT* an Aimpoint, that's different. I wanted one, and I got one at a good price through a groupbuy.

What happened to your Tacpoint?

On the other hand, that AR has some very functional iron sights on her already.

 

[wally]

Why spend the $$$ if something less expensive meets *your* needs. If I were taking my gun where someone might be shoting back $300 *is* cheap. But for the range, I'd rather spend the extra money on more ammo.

I was at the range last year where two guys had AR10s one with an Aimpoint, the other with an $90 Busnell. They seemed to conclude the Bushnell was just as good in placing rounds on the target, and the guy with the EO was thinking of selling it.

If paying top dollar for "quality" and getting your money's worth in "pride of ownership" gives you pleasure then go for it. OTOH the utilitarian value of someting depends on how you actually use it.

I've one of the cheap $30 30mm "Target Sports" on my AR, since I shoot much better with it than with irons its a fantastic value. Would I take to IRAQ? -- not a chance! Would I hit better with an AO? -- I'd not bet a nickel on it, since all I shoot is cheap or surlplus ammo.

Personally when I see and AO, I tend to think "mall ninja" or spoiled rich kid.

--wally.

 

[olyeller]

au contraire

I have a clone, got it off a guy that sells on ebay; theres a huge thread on ar15.com that talks about it. Thes ebay seller's name is jackyiscxd
http://cgi.ebay.com/Aimpoint-RDS-Sc...235244071QQcategoryZ66827QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I have this one in a genuine ARMS 22/m68 mount and its bad ass. The first thing you will say when you get it is, "wow: it looks, feels, and operates like a real piece of milspec equipt."
The dot is as sharp as any dot scope Ive ever seem, and bright enough for day time used easily.
Go read that thread at affcom, though, first.

 

[c_yeager]

I get not wanting to spend $300 on an aimpoint. What I dont understand is why someone would spend money on a no-name knockoff of dubious quality when for a little more money one can purchase ample civilian market red-dot sights that are made by reputable companies and come with warantees.

Is a genuine aimpoint 10 times better than a $30 knock off? I suppose it depends on what you need it for. For the vast majority of civilian shooters, the answere IMHO is no. However, is a $100 Bushnell or Simmons sight three times better than the knockoff? How about Russian military scopes? I think so. The only reason to get a knockoff sight is if the *look* of your rifle is more important than it's function.

 

[Greywolf]

It appears, based on a lot of reviews from others at other sites, that if you plan to go out to the range a few times a year, don't bang your rifle around too much, and don't get the optic submerged, that a knock-off is not a bad thing. $75 for one, shipped, with a mount, on a .223 or .22 or 9mm AR-15 could do the trick for quite a while.

Trust me - I know there is a difference in magnified optics, and I have Zeiss scopes on 2 rifles, a $1000 Swarovski on another, and a $500 Fujinon on another. But for just doing range shooting spending $75 isn't a bad deal in my book.

I think I will give it a shot and see what happens.

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

I used to buy cheap optics, but after dealing with all their failings, got sick of it, and started buying the expensive stuff, like Leupold and Aimpoint. One cheap red dot broke under magnum shotgun recoil, another one quickly drains the battery even when turned off, and a cheap 3-9X/40mm scope I have fogs up intensely in a light drizzle (I'd bet normal air in Florida in August would make it fog).

Basically, I'd say, if you don't really care that much, get the cheap one. If you do care, get the high-quality one. I know cheap stuff sometimes works great, and expensive stuff can be a lemon, but the probability times the hassle comes out in favor of the more expensive stuff.

 

[mmike87]

I opted for the "real thing" and sprung for the Aimpoints. I have an ML2 and an ML3 2MOA on an AR-15 and FAL respectively.

Snce they are part of my "EOTWAWKI" arsenal, I wanted heavier duty stuff.

That said, I see nothing wrong with a less expensive red dot on a range gun or an inexpensive rifle that is not your SHTF or home defense weapon.

 

[mmike87]

Creeping Incrementalism - you bring up a good point. The Aimpoint ML3 has a 50,000 hour battery life. Thats many, many YEARS of being on constantly.

The clones typically have battery life far less than 100 hours.

You are paying more for the Aimpoint technology. You really are getting more than just a claim that it's heavy duty.

I take comfort knowing that if I leave the Aimpoint on and someday need in in a hurry, the thing is likely to not have a dead battery!

 

[meef]

The Aimpoint ML3 has a 50,000 hour battery life. Thats many, many YEARS of being on constantly.

Actually, it's only about 5.71 years - give or take a day or so.

Better remember to turn it off when not in use.

 

[mmike87]

meef - thanks for the clarification. I'd better stop playing with the Aimpoint all the time wasting the batteries!

 

[Tomac]

Some people simply cannot afford (or do not need) absolute top of the line so finding something of reasonable quality & capability is a good thing. The closest thing to an Aimpoint clone that I use is the Burris XTS-135 for $197: http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=664830 . It's waterproof, fogproof & shockproof, gets 200+ hrs per battery at the highest intensity.
Tomac

 

[jthuang]

Creeping Incrementalism - you bring up a good point. The Aimpoint ML3 has a 50,000 hour battery life. Thats many, many YEARS of being on constantly.

How about a previous generation model? An Aimpoint ML-XD or a ML2? You don't have to pay full freight on a ML3 but you get Aimpoint quality and a much lower price tag.

PS I have a M-XD and it has a 1,000hr battery life ... not too shabby.

 

[cavman]

Are the Aimpoint and the Ultradot Microdots comparable in terms of function and relaibility, ect.?

 

[Clark]

I have shot Aimpoints and I have shot cheap clones.

The problem for me is that at 1X power, there is no focus, and the red dot is blurry.

The other problem with cheap optics is that they are unreliable. I started out with Asian optics 12 years ago, but now I am only buying Burris and Leupold.

I think Ken's web site is funny:

http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh/scope.html
What to do with a Cheap Scope

Put it on a .22LR
Not a bad idea, but you'll probably need small-base tip-off rings in one-inch diameter, which run $20 to $24 dollars, more than half the price of the scope! Often, it's cheaper to buy a full-size type base and use the existing rings.
Before mounting, the scope should be adjusted for 50 yard (or less) parallax. J. Clark used to have an excellent page that described how to do it yourself. Since this link has long been dead, I've tried to duplicate it as best I can from memory here. Most scope manufacturers (that have a US office) will do it for you, for about $10.00. I strongly believe in sending the scope back to the manufacturer, because I think that they should see the cheap stuff that they make coming back to haunt them over, and over, and over.
Put it on an air gun
Not a bad idea for pneumatics, except for the cost of the rings, as noted above. For spring-cockers, though, their unusual recoil dynamic destroys even expensive scopes.
Make a lamp out of it
Just be careful when drilling though the glass not to cut yourself.
Give it to the kids
Just remind them of local ordinances concerning peeping.
Put it on a gun for sale.
Just be sure and blame someone else for actually buying it, and putting it on a really great gun.
Give it to someone you don't like
You're doing them a favour, they need to learn all this stuff too

 

[Lebben-B]

I wholeheartedly agree with Tomac. If you don't want to or can't pony up the money for an AimPoint or EOTech, the Burris XTS would be a better alternative than the Tac-Point. With the Burris, you get a great warranty and sturdier construction than a Tac-Point at a lower price than an AimPoint. Another alternative (and slightly less expensive than the Burris) is the AimPoint-inspired optic sold by Dillon. For $150 or so you get the sight plus a gooseneck mount.

Mike

 

[Plink]

Alot depends on who makes it. Some lookalikes are cheap junk meant to copy something else. Others are made similarly because the design simply works. I've had some cheap optics that hold zero, have good glass, are durable, etc. It's always a crapshoot though.

Since it's not a matter of life or death, I'd say go for it and try it out. Worst that can happen is you discover that the Aimpoint concept works for you, and you want a better version. If you realize it's not for you, it's better to have only spent $30 to find out.

Recently I've been buying a lot of cheapo "tactical" lights. I have a lot of guns that I'd like a light on, and I wasn't about to spend several hundred dollars each. If they don't last, then i'll prioritize and put high dollar ones on the most important of them. Good way to try something out.

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Alot depends on who makes it. Some lookalikes are cheap junk meant to copy something else. Others are made similarly because the design simply works. I've had some cheap optics that hold zero, have good glass, are durable, etc. It's always a crapshoot though.

The crapshoot--the time of dicking around trying to see if things work, and then replacing them, and all the frustration--usually "costs" more than the dollar value of the more reputable optic, unless you're into the hobby enough that you like the process more than the results.