The ACOG patent expired 9 years ago. Why hasn't someone

There are plenty of clones out there, they just all suck and don't have the Trijicon warranty

>>34447911
Because people are willing to pay.

File: browe.jpg (67KB, 992x709px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 992x709px

>>34447911
Browe BCO is pretty interesting.

>>34447911

Dealer part isn't true. You can sell below MAP but you can't advertise it.

That's why you see a lot of "add to cart to see price".

>>34447911
>Why hasn't someone undercut (((Trijicon))) with a proper clone?
They can't.

>>34448198
[citation needed]

>>34448257
They're the only ones who have the experience and expertise to bring the ACOG and all of its specific qualities to market at the price point they can sell them at. If someone could do it just as well, for less, they would be out there.

>>34448257
>something doesn't exist
>oh yeah? prove it
you're retarded

>>34448257
The design has been public for three fucking decades, if someone was able to produce a cheaper alternative with the same features and quality it would have come out long ago

>>34448313
>>34448846
so is the ACOG just an incredibly complex device, or is Trijicon a super-manufacturer?

>>34448894
Do you think people take a pile of glass and aluminum and fiber optic material and then snap their fingers and an ACOG poofs into existence. Machines, tooling, and training cost money.

>>34449130
ssssooooo.... both?

>>34449130
It's not difficult to make. Nothing about it is difficult to make. I bet it costs them less than a hundred dollars to make the scope.

Also tritium is shit and radium is better.

>>34449643
>not dificult
>what are lesnses
>what are adjustment knobs with repeatable, consistent changes between clicks
>what are impact and weather resistence
>what are the costs of tritium
Nigger please, I know you're stupid but it's a medium end scope at a decent price with some nice features. Not every scope is a rim fire piece of garbage

>>34449659
Not to mention R&D

>>34449643
Ask how I know you're one of those guys who just stares blankly ahead on the subway breathing noisily through his slack, open mouth.

>>34449679
uh oh, now you're attacking character and not the argument.... that's a great rebuttal

>>34449643
You think that forged 7076 housing every ACOG has just gets shat out by a fairy?

>>34449687
>rebuttal
>thinking this is a debate
>not the Internet equivalent of letting a hobo piss in your mouth
>ironically attacking the character of the character assasin

>>34449687
Stupid posts deserve stupid replies. Welcome to 4chan now git.

>>34447911
Supply and demand.

No one wants a clone. People who buy Trijicon want real military grade optics. In order to actually undercut trijicon someone needs to produce military grade optics at a lower price than they do.

Entirely possible, but maybe not the smartest business plan.

>>34449710
that would explain the price.

>>34449130
In my survival games I just beat my fist against rocks and trees until I get enough recources to combine and build my item.

>people who dont understand that manufacturing requires materials AND machines

how are you going to pay for several million dollars of machines if you're only selling at $200 per acog?

fucking retard

>>34449874
Can you imagine if life was actually like this. The people discovering the recipes to make stuff would practically be God's.

>>34450425
By selling quite a few more of them. I would have bought two or three at that price, and I own none at the moment. Lowing the price per unit doesn't mean you earn that much less per unit, but I'm sure you know that, seeing that your calling people on the internet retards.

>>34449870
kek .well said

>>34452052
ACOGs are only appealing to the military minded AR15 crowd, fudds don't use them for durr and I doubt precision shooters would use them either, seeing they have better purpose built optics available. Thus you have a relatively small market that is expensive to enter, and you can't really cut in quality either because then you will be branded as ACOG for poorfags which nobody wants.

>>34450425
they dont have to break even by selling one unit

>>34452679
>they dont have to break even by selling one unit
They do, on the commercial market.

>>34452657
I doubt anyone other than /arg/ fags care about whether an optic is for poorfag or not.
I don't have any info on whether or not deer hunters, or precision shooters would buy cheaper acogs, but I know that I would and I doubt that I'm an anomaly.

Ive heard the 100 dollar ones from china are ok range scopes. Obviously not something youd trust with your life, but they stay zeroed

>>34453026
I have one. if I didn't know it was off brand shit, I wouldn't give it a second thought. I've submerged it in water for 12 hours first thing I got it. it was totally fine with that.

>>34453114
Which one did you get? Did it happen to have a name or is it a straight bootleg?

>>34449130
>>34448894
My guess is the involvement of tritium and its regulations that may make it difficult

>>34453259
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Sand-color-ACOG-GL-4x32-Scope_60020895197.html?spm=a2700.details.maylikever.11.bywhpc

looks like this one, there is probably just one sweatshop that makes them anyway. got it of a airshit kid. the fiberoptic is a sham obviously but it is a true fixed 4 power scope. the RMR is also functional but not adjustable.

>>34447911
The Browe Combat Optic is the closest thing that comes to mind. I think the company that makes them was even started by a Trijicon emoloyee.

>>34453524
Still has the same shitty eye relief, costs the same, etc.

>>34452705
>I doubt anyone other than /arg/ fags care about whether an optic is for poorfag or not.
I hate this fucktarded belief that only /arg/ shitters can appreciate and afford good quality optics.

>>34449679
kek

>>34449679
Yes. Some machined aluminum, some glass, .05 curries of tritium and some fiber optic. Totally worth 1400. You're totally not being completely ripped off like a dumb cuck.

Does Trijicon still inscribe Bible verses on their optics? I want the light of Jesus to guide my shots.

Burris AR series are decent. I've had the 536 for two years now and it's been great. Nowhere near as good as the ACOGs I've seen in terms of optical clarity but it tells you where the boogity bullets go every time.

The optical quality is probably a lot if what you pay for in an ACOG or Elcan, precision cut prisms of quality glass will cost. That and you're paying for higher intensity QC at that price point.

>>34450425
Ahahahaha
Yeah it doesn't require millions of dollars of machines to make an acog.
Maybe something like 200k, even that's too much. Machined aluminum, printed polymer parts, some glass you sources from a different manufacture, fiber optics and some tritium. Making an acog isn't difficult.

>>34453408
Not an acog without tritium.

The fact of the matter is, civilians buy ACOGs to LARP. That's it. They want to feel like big strong soldiers while they're too cowardly or physically incapable of serving (the latter is especially true, you'll be hard pressed to find many people who own ACOGs and also weigh less than 300 lbs).

These types of people don't really care how "good" ACOGs are, they want one because the US military uses them. They don't want a cheap knock-off, or even a cheaper and better alternative. They want to LARP as muh-reens and are wiling to shell out big bucks to do so. Trijicon can sell their sights at very high profit margins because their customers are willing to pay.

>>34455097
why haven't you done it anon?

>>34449659
>>what are lesnses
easy to create to spec
>>what are adjustment knobs with repeatable, consistent changes between clicks
Small threads to minimize backlash and an indent, spring, and ball bearing.
>>what are impact and weather resistance
Relatively small assembly tolerances.
>>what are the costs of tritium
The only aspect that one can defend in regards to the price, but not so much that it justifies the entire price.

>>34455734
then fucking make one yourself and undercut trijicon by selling a better product for 100 bucks a pop.

Oh wait, you cant because you have no idea what you're talking about...

>>34455791
>lol make it urself
not an argument

>>34452657
>cheap quality usable optic for 200 dollarydoos.
You're stilling looking at many many millions of units sold, even without fudds and cucks.

>>34455791
I'm risk averse. Just because something could be done doesn't mean that I have to do it.
I will never start a serious business in my life, and I'm ok with that.
The closest I will ever come is during retirement machining small runs (10-50) of replica and modernized firearms and then selling them over a period of months/years at close to cost.

>tl;dr
not everyone wants the risk and work associated with being a serious company.

>>34455803
all this poorfag salt
>it's just aluminum and glass!!1!
>Why won't someone give me an ACOG!!!1!
Poorfags get fucked, I worked hard to give my rifue some great glasses.
If it's so easy and cheap, do it yourself instead of shitposting about others having nice things.

>>34455803
>It's soooo easy guys, just slap together this housing, buy some lenses from china shoot some gases at it you're good to go
>well no I don't want to make it, I'll leave that to the manufacturers of such things who know what they're doing and know about margins and revenue and manufacturing cost.
>Wahhhh why haven't these people who are by my own admission many thousands of times smarter than me on this topic clued into this obvious business venture, surely they just haven't thought of it yet!
I'll tell you what champ, you can write Vortex a letter tonight, we'll mail it in the morning. Brush your teeth now little guy!

>>34455636
>you'll be hard pressed to find many people who own ACOGs and also weigh less than 300 lbs
... now that you mention it I don't think I've ever seen someone at the range with an ACOG who wasn't fat

>>34455859
I'm more than confident that you own apple products.

>>34455857
So what you're saying is, you cannot do what Trijicon does.

>>34455803
>not an arguement
Nor was anything you posted

But to rebut your crap

1. Lenses are not easy to make, even a small flaw in forming or polishing means it is not useful

2. Small threads strip easily when exposed to harsh treatment, indents are fine until they wear and don't locate anymore, avoiding this requires hardening which increases costs
3. there is more to impact and weather than that, but even if I grant you that is part of it tighter tolerances increase either part scrapage rates or production times - both increase prices

>>34455890
Why does /g/ always infect other boards with this bullshit?

>>34455890
Just an ipad
All other electronics are either acer, handmade or Microsoft.

>>34455902
I am unwilling to do what trijicon does.

I can make burgers.
I can make a machine that makes burgers that uses a couple dozen cents of electricity an hour.
I can source self-service teller machines.
I can source a supplier of beef and buns.
That doesn't mean that I have to do so.


>>34455913
Would you have preferred for me to call you alex?

>>34455636
>He thinks the armed forces aren't almost completely filled with the dregs and plebs of society.
It doesn't take extraordinary character to throw away the prime of your life.

>>34455968
>I am unwilling to do what trijicon does.
Because it isn't easy, exactly.

>>34455987
That wasn't the issue.

The issue is that trijicon makes a quality product at a price-point that isn't warranted.
It's bad value. You then have people shitposting about how a bad value is a good thing because because.
Can a chink make a clone of an acog? No.
Can a competent us manufacturer make a clone of an acog that is substantially cheaper? without a doubt.


/thread

>>34456015
>Can a competent us manufacturer make a clone of an acog that is substantially cheaper? without a doubt.
Then why hasn't anyone done it?

>>34456025
https://youtu.be/iEDFn3UtVIc?t=288
>4:48
Gun jesus speaks the truth.

>>34456015
>Can a competent us manufacturer make a clone of an acog that is substantially cheaper? without a doubt.
literally unproven assertions
how much does the glass alone cost?

>>34456062
Nice little irrelevant speech, there. Convince me that it's possible to build an ACOG for cheaper than dealers pay for them.

>>34456062
except this is about making a light .50 cal semi auto and nothing to do with optics. there are already many companies in the optics business, many looking to break through and build market share. if any of them could make a fucking ACOG for $200 they would be on that shit like white on rice.

>>34456076
>>34456081
>don't be a faggot, just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it won't work
"irrelevant"

>>34456015
>It's bad value
If that where true they would either be forced to lower it due to low sales or someone would have made it cheaper and undercut their prices

The fact that neither has happened in 9 years since the patent ran out is a sign that you have missed something fundamental.

ACOG's are a low volume premium optic, there is not the volume of sales that would warrant another company starting a line that tries to undercut an established brand

It is a high value item as it is finished to a premium quality, a lower quality item becomes of a lower value and therefore will struggle to establish a market share

>>34456086
Prove it would work, even in theory. You haven't even done that so that quote is irrelevant.

>>34456086
the situation is different though, that's my point. the Barrett thing is about the market viability of a product and our stupid ACOG conversation is about whether it's even possible to manufacture something at a certain price point.

>>34456089
Nothing in economics says bad value can't exist.
Luxury goods literally operate on the principle of making the product the worst possible value, while selling enough product that profit is maximized.

>>34456015
>Can a competent us manufacturer make a clone of an acog that is substantially cheaper? without a doubt.
Okay, then where's it been the past decade a half or so you monument to human critical thinking?

>>34455734
>lenses
>easy to create to spec
You are so goddamned stupid and you don't even realize it, fuck.

You dense lads, ask yourselves this:
Why are copies of products not available for sale the same day that patents expire?
If your assertions of "if not by now, then never" were true and logically consistent, then every copy ever would appear the very day a patent expired.

File: WP_20170514_008[1].jpg (937KB, 2425x1728px) Image search: [Google]

937KB, 2425x1728px

>ITT a bunch of angsty poorfags who have never owned nor used an ACOG swear on their lives that anyone could shit out a perfect clone and market it at $700
Sad!

File: mroceyebox.gif (4MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x270px

Atibal makes the MROC with an msrp of 400.

>>34456064


Considering the scopes go for 1300 dollars, probably about 400 dollars for that kind of quality glass.

File: Atibal-MROC-1.jpg (240KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1024x768px

>>34456171
http://www.thenewrifleman.com/atibal-mroc-review-a-new-prismatic-appears/

>>34456176
You have no idea just how much you're highballing.

>>34456191
proofs?

you can't just say "nah it's cheap" forever, haven't done anything on the optics side of the house but even in machine time an ACOG would be pretty expensive to make

>>34456147
>not existing 9 years later is the same as not existing 1 day later

okay, you're just retarded and haven't realized yet

>>34447911

The problem with creating an ACOG clone is that you are naturally inviting comparison to the original--a product that has been endlessly lauded by both military and civilian customers. Reliability and ruggedness are (arguably) the ACOG's most notable features, and it's proven its worth beyond a shadow of a doubt over the entire GWoT. I don't think it's perfect, and I honestly prefer other rifle optics. However, the ACOG is one of the few pieces of equipment that I've never heard infantrymen complain about. It's nearly ascended to the same revered status as the woobie and jalapeno cheese spread.

Even if you produced a clone that was qualitatively equal--even superior-- to the ACOG and offered it at a lower price, consumers would likely choose the ACOG simply because it's a known quantity. It's really, really hard to beat a strong brand at its own game.

>>34456205
couple dozen bucks.
http://www.telescopemirrorblanks.com/mirror_blanks.html
I know they're telescope blanks, but it's optical glass and a fuckload of it. Refractive index is basically the same.

>>34456213
>logically consistent
read.

>>34456248
not even close lol. refractive index isn't the only concern optically

>>34456285
>refractive index isn't the only concern optically
everything else is coating based.

>>34456237
I dislike both the ACOG and the jalapeno (pronounced jala peno) cheese spread. bacon cheese spread or bust.

>>34456298
>surface defects don't exist
ok

but seriously the argument is already falling apart
to forge and machine the housing is probably already a couple hundred dollars, optics are going to be another couple hundred, then start thinking about adjustments and the turrets, then mounting hardware, then tritium and reticle etching and fiber optics and so on. pretty soon you're already in the ballpark of the dealer cost

if it's really that easy to mass produce a fucking ACOG for $200 it should be easy to make one unit for $400 but that's not happening

>>34456353
It's fucking glass. There are always surface defects.
yeah i get it, different processing methods change their average depth/length.
The glass itself is still a couple bucks.

>>34456371
>a couple bucks
jesus christ how intellectually dishonest can you get? why don't you make a S&B PM2 for $500 while you're at it.

>>34456371
So how much can you make me another K624i for?

>>34456384
>jesus christ how intellectually dishonest can you get?
What is the maximum delta possible?

Optical glass is stupid cheap, literally under $15 of glass in an acog. 15 is well well below 400.

>>34456384
>meme scope
Sure thang.

>>34456410
>meme scope
Only the price of the glass.

>>34456384
>>34456418
And to clarify the 400 is from: >>34456176

And fuck me, I'm an idiot who misread that post. I thought you meant that the glass alone was 400.

>>34456384
Hold up, i reread what it was in reply to and you did mean that the glass alone was $400.
I'm not an idiot, you're still a faggot.

>>34456418
>Kahles
>meme
OK. I bet you think Swarovski is a meme, too.

>>34456461
>thinking only one guy would disagree with your retarded arguments
it ain't me

All the talk of qc, I want access to some radiation leaking seconds. My tr24 needs a cheap friend....

File: meme glass duck.jpg (66KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1024x768px

>>34456466
Yes.

>>34456477
>your retarded arguments
"ay yo, glass be like $1300 and like $400 in an acog"
"optical glass is cheap"
"prove it"
"here is the proof"
"you're a dishonest faggot because I don't need a reason"

>>34453697

Then make your own for cheap retard

>>34456418
What's a not-meme scope anon? I'm ready for your line of awesome precision rifle scopes to come out since we're talking about a fucking 400% profit margin right here.

>>34456521
Or anon could just use a self winding mechanism, a small rechargeable coin cell and an led...

>>34456519
>posting a DIY'ers telescope blanks with a shit ton of surface defects and no coatings is the same as proving the glass in an ACOG is cheap
okay anon

>>34456549
Coatings aren't glass.
All glass has surface defects, it's fucking glass. You can minimize them through different manufacturing methods, but you can't eliminate them. (inb4 focused ion beams, stop being a faggot)
Surface defects in blanks don't matter you fucking mongoloid.
Telescope blanks with enough glass for several acogs. It was only an example of material cost.
Optical glass is stupid cheap.

Do you have evidence that proves those things wrong, or do you want to keep shitposting?

>>34456626
>latching onto the word glass this hard
you realize that when the layperson discusses scopes they think of a finished, coated optical element as "glass", right? why is it so hard for you to not suck cocks?

>>34456649
Because they also call shotguns boomsticks and call cartridges calibers.

When the topic at hand is literal glass, it's sort of relevant to talk about glass.
>>34456064 : >how much does the glass alone cost?

So unless anon meant "how much does the optic cost, independent of the cost of the entire optic?", you're a faggot.

>>34456699
>>34456649
Let me rephrase. If we were talking about receivers and someone said "how much does the aluminum cost" and someone was going on about machining, heat treats, and coatings, you would call them a faggot for not talking about the cost of aluminum.

You're a faggot.

>>34456418
>Optical glass is stupid cheap, literally under $15 of glass in an acog
This thread has reached absurd levels of stupidity

>>34456746
Basic manufacturing materials are cheap. economies of scale.
Optical glass isn't something that corning whipped up last week, it's basically on par with soda lyme and borosilicate glass. Basic stuff.

Leupold HAMR

>>34456699
>So unless anon meant "how much does the optic cost, independent of the cost of the entire optic?", you're a faggot.
You're retarded and it's obvious you have no background in manufacturing anything out of metal, because the lenses are definitely not going to be the cost of the entire optic. Forging and machining the housing itself is already going to cost a lot, then turrets and adjustment mechanisms on top of all adds up quickly.

>>34456719
It's also obvious you never read any actual forums where people discuss optics because "glass" is a extremely common colloquial term for coated lenses whereas nobody talks about finished receivers as "aluminum". Go ahead and kys.

>>34456076
>Irrelevant speech
Man you really gotta work on your reading/hearing comprehension.

>>34456371
>Glass itself is still a couple bucks
You clearly not very little about optics and lens. You know they don't just "mold" lens right? They're ground down in a process that makes even 3 axis CNC look simple by comparison.


I seriously don't buy the "low volume optic" argument. Millions of ARs are sold to civilians each year, the vast majority of them being for casual preppers and dudebros. Most hunters use hunting rifles. Must precision shooters use precision shooting rifles. All those cheap $400-$500 ARs being sold are bought by average CoD playing, sip sipping young men. This market is a prime candidate for a quality military style fixed magnification optic ACOG type knockoff. Just look at how many PA MD ADS, or Bushnell TRS-25s sell.

File: 1497555139837.jpg (152KB, 279x467px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 279x467px

>>34456327

>>34456805
>Man you really gotta work on your reading/hearing comprehension.
Oh, it's been you this whole time.

>>34456772
>the only costs involved with a lens are the materials
And it just jumped up another couple of rungs

>>34456802
I've only ever heard people refer to entire optic as glass, never the finished lense/s as glass. (meaning not as a description)

>>34456805
>You know they don't just "mold" lens right
Fuck you, I'm from 1920. We cast lenses.

>They're ground down in a process that makes even 3 axis CNC look simple by comparison.
I am aware.

>>34456626
>Optical glass is super cheap
You really don't know what you're talking about. Even the shittiest uncoated low quality spherical lenses in the 25mm diameter range are $30-$40 a pop commercially. That is for low power large focal lenghts as well.

A magnification setup has multiple lenses, must be aspherical to reduce aberration, and should also be coated ideally. Combine that with high density and low degrees of defects and you're beginning to look at $100-$200 per lens commercially, and we're not even talking high power small focal lengths yet.

And we're just getting started. With glass/optics quality, the limit is literally infinite because you can always work to approximate and correct your nonlinearities.

>>34456772
>Optical glass
>Basic stuff
With all due respect my friend, you do not know what you're talking about.

>>34456856
The only cost associated with the material cost for a lens is the material cost... I didn't make any other claim.

>>34456846
>WDHMBT
I don't take my trip off when I'm on /k/. Sometimes I namefag when I'm at work.

>>34456873
People call scopes "glass" all the time.
>"Hey bubba, when you gonna get some glass for that there durr rifle.

>>34456873
>I've only ever heard people refer to entire optic as glass, never the finished lense/s as glass. (meaning not as a description)
literally every scope review out there on snipershide has a discussion of how the "glass" (really meaning the finished lenses because what the fuck else could it mean) looks.

>>34456908
>People call scopes "glass" all the time.
That was my point. I've never heard it used like that to refer to a lens.

>>34456894
About 90% of the cost of a lens is going to be from the process of getting the glass ready to be, wait for it, a lens. Stop being an obtuse fuckwad. This entire thread should have never happened.

>>34452679
PER ACOG
>>>>>>>

>>34456923
>Stop being an obtuse fuckwad.
I refuse.
The price of weaponized autism is dealing with autists.

>>34456952
You're not autistic, you're just a stubborn retard.

>>34456956
I'm both stubborn and autistic.

Honestly its probably do-able for $300 or so. PA makes an Aimpoint clone for less than 1/3 of the market value and they're considered good optics of similar quality.

You could probably cut out the tritium and just make it have a good battery life like an aimpoint as compensation to save a ton on extremely expensive tritium

>>34456964
/thread

>>34456964
>PA makes an Aimpoint clone for less than 1/3 of the market value and they're considered good optics of similar quality.
Who the fuck considers a PA red dot anywhere near similar quality to an Aimpoint?

>>34456964
>make it have a good battery life
god if it was that easy
you realize one of the things plaguing all of the major scope manufacturers is their inability to consistently deliver daylight visible illumination even in $1600 and up optics, right?

>>34456964
also similar quality is a joke. aim your PA red dot at a 5.5" bull at 100 yards, then move your head around so that the dot isn't centered, and watch how the parallax throws it off target entirely.

>>34456987
Tritium and fiber optic

>>34456916
Oh my bad.

This is a fun discussion.

Here are a bunch of fixed magnification scopes that are relevant to the conversation. Between all of them there are at least 150 reviews, and that is just on the PA website. There is obviously a market. The question is are people buying ACOGs because they truly care about the glass quality and durability edge that ACOGs have over these other optics, or is it just because the military uses them? Is there even a distinction there since presumably the military uses them because of their glass quality and durability? Interesting philosophical difference between types of causation.

http://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-5x-prism-scope-w-patented-223-5-56-5-45x39-308-acss-reticle-pac5x

http://www.primaryarms.com/burris-ar-332-3x-prism-sight-bu300208

http://www.primaryarms.com/burris-ar-536-5x-prism-sight-bu300210

http://www.primaryarms.com/lucid-4x-prismatic-weapons-optic-w-dual-illumination-the-p7-reticle-l-4x-p7

http://www.primaryarms.com/vortex-spitfire-3x-prism-scope-ebr-556-reticle-spr-1303

http://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-3x-compact-prism-scope-w-the-patented-acss-5-56-reticle-pac3x-acss-5-56

http://www.primaryarms.com/primary-arms-2-5x-compact-ar15-scope-with-patented-cqb-acss-reticle-pac2-5x

File: WP_20161213_003[2].jpg (1MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x1728px

>>34456964
> PA makes an Aimpoint clone for less than 1/3 of the market value
>similar quality
Anyone who claims an MD-ADS is a full-fledged duplicate of an Aimpoint Micro should be chemically castrated.

>>34448846
There are prism scopes out there with better glass than Trijicon. Some even have the fiber optic light pipe.

The reasons they aren't more popular are:
>good glass is expensive
>hard to compete with the extremely well known ACOG name because of muh contracts, without selling at a significantly lower price point, which conflicts with the above point
>prism scopes have been obsolete as combat optics since before the ACOG's patent expired
>tritium is expensive and heavily regulated if not outright banned in some places

Kahles, Meopta, Swarovski, Steiner, and USO all make prism scopes. They all have significantly better glass than anything Trijicon's ever made, and some of them are at similar price points to a TA31. Some even have similar aesthetics or weigh less.

Bushnell, Burris, PA, Vortex, and a whole shitload of chinese amazon-tier companies make significantly cheaper prism scopes, and some of them have as good or nearly as good of glass. But they tend to either be humongous or ugly, and frequently both.

>>34456987
How hard can it be to use 4 triple A's and tell the user to just suck it up and spend 3$ every couple months.

>>34457079
some people are just wound up around really inane things like battery life

>>34457097
isn't the solution to have two batteries and a switch? Most reasonable what-if's die.

As far as battery life goes, short of turning off the reticle when you blink, there isn't much that can be done.
Have manufacturers been making scopes with photosensors and automatically adjusting reticles? Because I'd be surprised if they haven't.

>>34457097
>Inane things like battery life
>Reach for gun in HD scenario and no reticule presents itself
A 3 month battery life is much more likely to leave you in the above situation than a 5 year battery life. You've got a weird definition of inane.

>>34457041
They are far from identical.

>>34457007
Do you claim that the Micro T/H series has less parallax than the PA MD ADS?

>>34456979
Not similar quality, but the PA MD ADS is still quite good by my estimation. I've had mine for almost 2 years, with almost 3k rounds fired underneath it. No massive amount of abuse, but I'm using it. I would say the PA MD ADS is "well regulated militia" serviceable. Basically low key "combat" ready. An Aimpoint is miles better, but the PA MD ADS isn't so bad that it'll get you killed when it fails.

>>34457037
I would argue that the glass quality in an ACOG is pretty meh. It's not shit, but it's also not $1000+ optic worthy.

The Burrix 3x has better edge to edge clarity, lower edge distortion, and better color correctness than the TA31F. And it's literally a third of the price.

The durability and warranty are the only things the ACOG has going for it besides the "washes out in daylight, too bright for precision in low light" tritium, which most people would agree is a role better served by battery powered illumination.

File: welcome to wendys.jpg (68KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 640x640px

>>34447911
>BAWW I WISH I WASNT POORFAGOT
>Y R NIEC THINGS SO EXPENSE??
>BAWW
> O WELL BAK 2 WERK

>>34457141
>Have manufacturers been making scopes with photosensors and automatically adjusting reticles?
Yes, for at least 15 years.

They aren't really that good, and can't adjust fast or accurately enough for transitioning between light and dim conditions.

>>34457149
>Do you claim that the Micro T/H series has less parallax than the PA MD ADS?
the T2 seems to. You seen the testing report Eric Dorenbush put out recently?

>>34457149
>home defense gun
>not running a holo front sight and holo rear sight

>>34457165
And what do you do for a job Mr High and Mighty

>>34457141
> photosensors and automatically adjusting reticles?
They've had those for a while and without fail they wind up being inconsistent and unreliable.

>>34453680
Appreciating good optics =/= sperging out whenever someone doesn't spend at least a grand on glass.

You can appreciate good quality cheap optics - like, say Vortex or Holosun - too.

>>34457303
You may live. Infact, you're an earl now.

>>34454016
Consumer ones have them; USGI don't.

Always thought that was really cringey, honestly.

>>34457324
Don't look underneath in-n-out cups.

>>34457190
Hmm I hear ya. Please link.

>>34457207
I'm just saying that battery life is a reasonable consideration, especially among the SHTF and HD crown.

>>34457324
It used to be cringey but since we're in the middle of a full blown global muslim conquest it is completely reasonable at this point and time.

>>34457389
>Hmm I hear ya. Please link.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5zgsq2kq6jri8bd/Red%20Dot%20Test%20Report%20.pdf?dl=0

>>34457245
CNN pls leave.

>>34457389
>I'm just saying that battery life is a reasonable consideration, especially among the SHTF and HD crown.
Think about it. It's a holo, so the reticles overlap. If one fails, it doesn't matter.

>>34457339
Why would I? We have Five Guys here, which is infinitely better.
>>34457389
'Cause fighting religious fundamentalism with religious fundamentalism is such a good idea.

>>34457477
>Why would I?
You don't like to pay out the nose for a good burger.

>We have Five Guys here, which is infinitely better.
So do we. But if getting wallet cucked is your fetish, then so be it.

>>34447962
>Post an optic that is more expensive than some basic acogs

>>34457477
>'Cause fighting religious fundamentalism with religious fundamentalism is such a good idea.
Yes.
Other than being illogical and overfond of being a cuck, modern christianity is the least degenerate and best religion.
t. atheist

>>34457409
Oooh thanks! There is little I love more than quasi-academic papers about military arms.

>>34457412
Of course, and you should have your irons up anyway I suppose on an HD carbine. I really was just trying to say that battery is a pretty solid consideration, and 3 months is absolute shit.

>>34457477
The masses need to be convinced somehow. I don't think that reason and logic are going to work.
>T. Jew advocating another crusade.

>>34457534
>>T. Jew advocating another crusade.
I am wary but appreciative.

>>34457477
Five guys is overpriced greasy trash

>>34458379
>trash
You're right on all other counts.

>>34453697
Too bad all you took was a bottle of jack daniels and a truck stop

>>34456081
>>34456025
>>34456015
>>34455987
WHEW
http://shop.opticsplanet.com/primary-arms-3x-compact-prism-scope-with-the-patented-7-62x39-300bo-acss-reticle.html?_iv_code=29R-RS-PAC3XAK300BO&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=plusbox-beta&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7Lq2tMzp1AIVQ1p-Ch1gpAkxEAQYBSABEgJfOvD_BwE

Oh as to why the ACOG is stupidly expensive, it's dealer enforced rollmark.

Despite popular stupidity, prism optics are not expensive, nor difficult to cut. They're extremely delicate however.

Any company that uses optics in any form, is buying them from OEM manufacturers who have the tooling needed to cut, shape and polish glass and prism glass. From rifle scopes to fucking glasses, it's all the same shit. Same glass, same process, same manufacturer.

And any CQ is done mechanically. What? You fucking idiots think that your own flawed eyes can tell whether the image fidelity and picture clarity of a lens and prism definition? Better than a fucking laser and sensor rig hooked up to a computer?

The other half is that the ACOG is a shitty design. It's a bitch to machine, and can you fucking imagine trying to tolerance such a fucking part with so many odd fucking cuts, which is critical for rifle scopes, then throw in nitrogen purging, testing and assembly. And anybody who thinks Tritium is expensive needs to fucking look up Tritium keychains.

But to make up for this and to keep their "Milspec" legacy, Trijicon does have fantastic QC, but again that isn't something that drives a price point. It ultimately comes down to the rollmark. People like to think they're getting something fantastic, and god willing they're pay out of the ass to fucking think they got something of matching value. Hence why people buy shit from HK when theres numerous clones of equal quality.

>>34461205
/thread

File: 1303328900629.gif (481KB, 141x141px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 141x141px

>>34461205
based anon

>>34461205
>Trijicon does have fantastic QC, but again that isn't something that drives a price point.
it kind of does when you have to cover for the costs of units that don't pass QC

> It ultimately comes down to the rollmark. People like to think they're getting something fantastic, and god willing they're pay out of the ass to fucking think they got something of matching value.
except they also win bids for military contracts where a rollmark is worth nothing and the cheapest bid that meets requirements wins

>>34449710
FORGED ALUMINUM!? WOW, that must be why they can't make ar-15s for less than $1358

>>34450425
104000 x $200 = $20.8 million. How much machinery do you think they have?

>>34461205
Thank you.

>>34463160
Leaving aside the fact that the military pays less than half of what civilians do for an acog, military contracts are often written in a way excludes certain competitors.

>>34463247
>FORGED ALUMINUM!? WOW, that must be why they can't make ar-15s for less than $1358
you realize AR15 lowers are very loosely toleranced in comparison to a nice optic housing

>Leaving aside the fact that the military pays less than half of what civilians do for an acog,
true but that's also nowhere near the $200-$400 numbers some people are throwing around carelessly
>military contracts are often written in a way excludes certain competitors.
That's not entirely wrong but they've also won a large number of foreign contracts where local companies supposedly would have an edge.

File: ACOG on Wish.jpg (334KB, 1920x862px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1920x862px

>>34447911
If anyone is still in this thread, I found an ACOG discounted by a huge bit
https://www.wish.com/c/58c6b3fab57020527b0d0996

>>34448846
Wasn't that the argument against the Barret?

>>34464027
Is that real?

No way it's real, it's gotta be a replica of some sort.

>>34464043
no the argument was that if there was a demand for a "light" semiautomatic .50BMG rifle someone would have already made one. nothing about whether it's possible to come in under a certain price point

>>34464052
of course it's not real

>>34464052
I have no clue, but the more I look for this shit on Wish, the more cheap shit I find. It's all discounted, mind you. The original prices are all in the triple digits.

>>34457079
Aimpoint gets what, 10 years?

>>34463328
>you realize AR15 lowers are very loosely toleranced in comparison to a nice optic housing
Do you know what those tolerances are?

>nowhere near the $200-$400 numbers some people are throwing around carelessly
OP's image says that price includes extras, but the Marines are probably still getting ripped off.

>>34461205
>A Primary Arms optic is directly comparable to an ACOG
This thread is something else, I tell you whut.

>>34463160
>the cheapest bid that meets requirements wins
... If we didn't have leftists in our government, that would be true.
It's called graft.

>>34463328
>you realize AR15 lowers are very loosely toleranced in comparison to a nice optic housing
Only ID matters. Milling means it doesn't fucking matter as long as the rough part has enough material to start with.

>>34466152
>... If we didn't have leftists in our government, that would be true.
>It's called graft.
hasn't stopped Trijicon from getting contracts in other countries

>>34465538
>Do you know what those tolerances are?
IIRC the tightest tolerances are that there's a handful of simple operations that are +- 0.001", all stuff that's literally as easy as choosing the right tool and milling a hole.

>>34466595
>hasn't stopped Trijicon from getting contracts in other countries
There are more leftists in government in almost every other country.

>>34467645
>There are more leftists in government in almost every other country.
why would foreign leftists want a US based company with bible verses on their scopes to win bids?

>>34467678
For the graft.

>>34457477
Christianity>>>>>>>>Arab moon cult/clitorectomy service.
bring on the next crusade.
t. atheist.

>>34461205
Still waiting for someone to mention an ACOG style optic of similar quality to an ACOG.

>>34447911
https://www.atibalsights.com/collections/rifle-scopes/products/atibal-modern-rifle-optic-component-mroc-3x32-illuminated-chevron-bdc?variant=27163547009

Hope this helps. Figure I'd rather be a bro than to bitch and cry like so many on here do.

>>34468048
Fuck off, it's been done.
You're going to say that acogs have magical qualities the prevent comparison with anything other than an acog.

>>34470201
Not him but I would be VERY interested to see this notACOG that is still ACOG quality.

>>34447911
>Set prices so cheap nobody can make money undercutting us.
>Still get (((echoes))) around our name

Get fucked, /k/abana-boy.

>>34470210
It's totally that $300 abortion from a literallywho company anon, trust me.

>>34455097

So undercut us faggot, find that polymer printer that can spit out consistently high-quality polymer ten-thousand times in a row so you don't have to call up your dealer network and apologize because you can't have the order ready. Do it faggot, undercut us. I dare you.

>>34455097
> printed polymer parts
You already undermined yourself and produced an inferior product, GG.

>>34461205
>Trijicon does have fantastic QC, but again that isn't something that drives a price point.

Oh yes, of course, our QA department doesn't draw a salary so we don't need to price that into the units we sell.

This board is as bad as >>>/biz/ holy shit.

>>34461205
>fantastic QC, but again that isn't something that drives a price point
I don't know if you're just being ironic or if you're actually this much of a retard. If the second, why in the name of fuck would you think that extra labor and manufacturing steps would not incur additional costs that need to be accounted for? How can you type that wall of text about something that you have absolutely no clue about?

>>34457410
: D

>>34466152
>blaming graft on leftists

Come the fuck on, you can't be that retarded.

>>34470580
>you can't be that retarded.
You look at this thread that has people saying $300 PA optics are comporable to a $1200 TA31F and that QC doesn't cost anything and say that again. Do it.

>>34467834
explain why can't other optics companies get gud at graft then? the edge should pretty much always go to companies that create local jobs, they can graft as well

>>34447911

A bunch if poorfags in here bitching about why they can't have nice things. It's because you're poor, stupid. There are almost NO good, cheap optics out there. The more you pay, the better the optics get. Get a fixed-power Nikon P223 if you only want to spend $200. If you try to get a $200 ACOG clone you're gonna get chink'd.

>>34470610
America does guns and gun accessories best.
You're basically asking why India isn't known for aerospace manufacturing.