LMFAO

nice, taht sells me on the aimpoint

Arfcom is going the way of the dodo for sure.

BTW, lowest bidder does'nt mean CHEAPEST!

Quoted: Arfcom is going the way of the dodo for sure. BTW, lowest bidder does'nt mean CHEAPEST!

I guess the lowest bidder means the most expensive?

Or, do you mean that it is quality made for the lowest amount of money? Which when it comes down to it, that means it is the CHEAPEST!

I guess I'll throw a comment in this thread.

I heard a comment by a guy on the FBI's hostage rescue team. He said they do live fire training every day.  A lot of us don't need a scope that can take that kind of abuse. We are simply not going to be practicing forced entries 5 days a week.  I'm not saying we can get buy with a scope that must be babied. We need a scope that will hold up to unlimited firing at the range, plus what ever drops and bumps it takes along the way, should not be affected by moisture and to be able to withstand serious use and some abuse in a SHTF situation. We need a scope that would last a full time operator about 3 months, not one that would last him 5 years.

Does this clone scope meet that criteria? I don't know. If it can't then it's crap.

Is an Aimpoint or similar scope the only one that will meet even my reduced criteria? Maybe.

As for myself I have a Trijicon front post on my AR.  I know that will take all the abuse I'll ever give it and last 10 years.

Gloftoe-  I never said you could post for sale threads outside the EE.  I'm talking about seeing Clone topics and other crap pop up everywhere.  Good ol' Jon can advertise all he wants in the EE.  I'm saying that before we know it, this stuff is going to cause a problem between guys selling used junk and guys looking to buy used Aimpoints.  

BeltFedHead- this clone of yours IS an Airsoft Optic.  That's EXACTLY what it was made for.  When Airsoft started to take off whenever the hell it did, companies started people in foreign countries were willing to spend hundreds of dollars on REAL red dot sights for their guns to get a true military look.   So the companies wisened up and started making clones that would hold up to airsoft use.  You've got yourself an Airsfot Optic, plain and simple.  

GlobalFear-  If you want to call those of us who don't support the purchasing of ChiCom knockoffs Gear Queers, you will now be known as a Clone Clown.    Fair enough?

As far as the thread on ARMS knockoff rings- it exists.  Captnrichardson I believe is the one who did the "T&E" because he is in "The Industry."

avatarhammer-  " Threads have titles that usually give a good idea of the topic. Don't read it if you don't like it."  Where in the title of this thread is the warning: "Caution- toys were used in the making of this firearm" ???

christ0ph- this was meant for toy guns (Airsoft.)  Read my statement above.  These truly were designed for Airsoft- not as a high-value low-cost replacement for your AR15.  

When the mil. or LEO community looks to the lowest bidder, they go to the lowest bidder AFTER everyone's submissions are tested.  They'll usually pick the lowest bidder from those who PASSED the test, not from the initial gang of turds that show up.  

Well damn lets ban all clones


AR15's                                   1911
                                 

Aramalite                              Detonics
Bushmaster                           Para - Ordnance
DPMS                                    Wilson
Eagle Arms                          
Fulton
H/K
H&R
Rock River Arms



Because lord nothing is as good as the orginal

Quoted: Well damn lets ban all clones AR15's                                   1911                                   Aramalite                              Detonics Bushmaster                           Para - Ordnance DPMS                                    Wilson Eagle Arms                           Fulton H/K H&R Rock River Arms You are an idiot with the biggest idiot statement everyone tries to make.   Because lord nothing no chinese crap is as good as the orginal

Each and every one of the companies you mention above builds to predetermined specifications.  All Ar15s are dimensionally equal and perform just as well as one another.  
There is no patent on the AR15 anymore and everyone has the right to make their own.  There are patents on A.R.M.S. products, Aimpoins and Trijicons that are blatantly ignored by the Chinese manufacturers.  

Quoted: Quoted: I mean he actually bought some airsoft ARMS rings and did a review of them compared with some real ARMS rings.  And he came out saying they were just as good. *DISCLAIMER* I have not the fogiest idea what thread you're talking about here. Was it maybe a joke or just something trying to rib people a little bit?

No it wasnt a joke, page 3 of this thread about half way down, a post by captrichardson.  It was a heated debate about this very topic.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=263852&page=3

okay, after reading that please ignore my previous post... I was almost sure it was some kind of a joke.

Quoted: this thread isnt about an airsoft optic.....

No it's not, but that isn't going to stop the brand snobs from spewing their retoric.

No excuse based on economics will ever be enough to justify your part in the theft of copyrighted material. Plain and simple. It is about morality, and the topic speaks volumes regarding the character of the guilty parties....

So dace what is so terribly wrong with his review?
Have you handled original ARMS mounts and the King Arms knock offs?
Did you do a hands on comparison? All you are doing is saying how much they suck. Someone went out and tested them and his results don't agree with what you think? He MUST be an idiot!


JoesphR, I couldn't care less if you support  do/don't support Aimpoint knockoffs.  That isn't the problem. Its that "people that will remain unnamed" come into beltfeed's thread to do nothing but crap on his thread and give him trouble all because he didn't buy the real deal. Don't buy it if you don't want to. Your personal stance on foriegn companies and thier respect for american patents shouldn't be dragged into a thread for the purpose of putting someone down and harrassing them.

Quoted: No excuse based on economics will ever be enough to justify your part in the theft of copyrighted material. Plain and simple. It is about morality, and the topic speaks volumes regarding the character of the guilty parties....

ah come on man, you can't blame somebody for buying a cheap copy... It's like somebody buying a Tasco over the Leupold IMO....

and as far as copyrights. idunno, a tube wiht a red dot in it? /shrugs/ never downloaded a song either huh?

Quoted: Quoted: No excuse based on economics will ever be enough to justify your part in the theft of copyrighted material. Plain and simple. It is about morality, and the topic speaks volumes regarding the character of the guilty parties.... ah come on man, you can't blame somebody for buying a cheap copy... It's like somebody buying a Tasco over the Leupold IMO....and as far as copyrights. idunno, a tube wiht a red dot in it? /shrugs/ never downloaded a song either huh?

When someone manufacturer's a product that looks and functions exactly like a patented product, that's patent infringement otherwise known to the layman as stealing! When a consumer purchases one of these "clone" products they are supporting thieves.

BTW, here's the patent for the Aimpoint. I love the convenience of the Internet.
Aimpoint patent

What bothers me about people buying clones is that the patent holders, the people with the ingenuity to think of the design in the first place, are getting ripped off. If the manufacturers who make clones licensed the original product, that would be fine but they don't because they are thieves.

And yes, I have never downloaded music off the Internet.

Quoted: Quoted: No excuse based on economics will ever be enough to justify your part in the theft of copyrighted material. Plain and simple. It is about morality, and the topic speaks volumes regarding the character of the guilty parties.... ah come on man, you can't blame somebody for buying a cheap copy... It's like somebody buying a Tasco over the Leupold IMO.... and as far as copyrights. idunno, a tube wiht a red dot in it? /shrugs/ never downloaded a song either huh?

No it is not like a buying a Tasco over a Leupold. That is legitimately shopping for a brand in your budget range. If you buy an exact copy of copyrighted products, it is theft. Tasco does not make an exact copy of a Leupold Mk4 series, or there would be no Tasco.

yea.. um, sorry not seeing it.

It's a very similiar product. You couldn't tell the difference in my plasma or a samsung plasma if you took the names off.

What was the first small pickup truck made? Ranger maybe? so the S-10is a illegal copy?

Like I said, I'm not seeing it. They made a cheaper made, cheaper selling price product. I'm sure Leupold didn't invent the rifle scope either. Nobody is going to mistake a chinese copy for an actual aimpoint. Nobody's going to mistake those giant ACOG look-kindofalikes in firequest for an ACOG eihter.

You're not taking a penny out of the pocket of the company. Do you really for a second believe that if there was no cheap aimpoint copy anybody would put the extra few hundred bucks and buy the aimpoint? No they wouldn't. If they could afford the real one they'd buy the real one.

The fact that people have a problem with this to me is absolutly insane to me. Hell nobody has a problem with AR copies, and when Colt tried to say they had a patent most of this site was against them on it. Yet if Aimpoint says this patent is their and nobody else can make it y'all are up in arms.

Ah well, I just don't get it, I can't even see where you're coming from on it so I'll go back to watching my football game.

Quoted: No it is not like a buying a Tasco over a Leupold. That is legitimately shopping for a brand in your budget range. If you buy an exact copy of copyrighted products, it is theft. Tasco does not make an exact copy of a Leupold Mk4 series, or there would be no Tasco.

LMFAO exact copy huh? AHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHA, deep breath AHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA If it was an exact copy nobody would be saying it's a toy and not fit for a real gun..  It's not even close to an exact copy, it's a cheap version of another product. Nothing more, it's what people who had zero chance of buyin the origional bought. If anything it helps aimpoint for future sales.


EDIT: Walmart sells shoes that look kinda like Nikes. They don't feel like Nikes or perform like Nikes but they look like they might be the same... The don't have the swoosh on them and I'm sure the copy doesn't say Aimpoint anywhere on it. Walmart sells them to people who ca'nt afford to buy nikes nad wouldn't buy them even if there was no wallywordl

Again, I don't even see where y'all are trying to come from on this.


EDIT2: I just realzed i'm almost having an argument on the interweb and I can't allow that to happen, so y'all enjoy yourselves.

Quoted: LMFAO exact copy huh? AHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHA, deep breath AHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA If it was an exact copy nobody would be saying it's a toy and not fit for a real gun..  It's not even close to an exact copy, it's a cheap version of another product. Nothing more, it's what people who had zero chance of buyin the origional bought. If anything it helps aimpoint for future sales.

There are people who have purchased clone Aimpoints that were advertised as the real things. There are also people who have bought clones of KAC and ARMS gears that was advertised as the real thing.

The Aimpoint clones look exactly like and operate exactly like the real thing. The actual differences between the clones and the real things are subtle (quality of materials and QC come to mind). A manufacturer can produce a product that appears similar and functions in a similar manner to the original without violating patents. I, and others here, have not problem with licensed copies because the patent owners are being compensated.

Just because you can't afford the real thing is no excuse to support thieves. If you can't afford the real thing, then buy the product used or buy something similar (in the case of Aimpoints, there are plenty of other legal red dots available). The fact is that some people buy the clones not just because of how they work but because they look exactly like the real thing. They want others to believe what they have is the real thing because the real thing is considered a status symbol to some degree. That's why people who buy clones are considered posers by some.

Quoted: Quoted: LMFAO exact copy huh? AHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHA, deep breath AHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA If it was an exact copy nobody would be saying it's a toy and not fit for a real gun..  It's not even close to an exact copy, it's a cheap version of another product. Nothing more, it's what people who had zero chance of buyin the origional bought. If anything it helps aimpoint for future sales. There are people who have purchased clone Aimpoints that were advertised as the real things. There are also people who have bought clones of KAC and ARMS gears that was advertised as the real thing. The Aimpoint clones look exactly like and operate exactly like the real thing. The actual differences between the clones and the real things are subtle (quality of materials and QC come to mind). A manufacturer can produce a product that appears similar and functions in a similar manner to the original without violating patents. I, and others here, have not problem with licensed copies because the patent owners are being compensated. Just because you can't afford the real thing is no excuse to support thieves. If you can't afford the real thing, then buy the product used or buy something similar (in the case of Aimpoints, there are plenty of other legal red dots available). The fact is that some people buy the clones not just because of how they work but because they look exactly like the real thing. They want others to believe what they have is the real thing because the real thing is considered a status symbol to some degree. That's why people who buy clones are considered posers by some.

Big +1 on that

Never argue with people who are gay for cheap crap. People who realize that in most cases it’s the costly high quality of a product that gives it function and value, have an intellectual edge over those people who you see wondering around Wal-Mart or a swap meet looking for some cheap crap with duct tape on it. I am not saying that all cheap things are bad and all expensive things are good, but you have to know when to bargain shop and when not to, and optics are not something to cheap out on. FMJs

Quoted: Quoted: No it is not like a buying a Tasco over a Leupold. That is legitimately shopping for a brand in your budget range. If you buy an exact copy of copyrighted products, it is theft. Tasco does not make an exact copy of a Leupold Mk4 series, or there would be no Tasco. LMFAO exact copy huh? AHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHA, deep breath AHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA If it was an exact copy nobody would be saying it's a toy and not fit for a real gun..  It's not even close to an exact copy, it's a cheap version of another product. Nothing more, it's what people who had zero chance of buyin the origional bought. If anything it helps aimpoint for future sales. EDIT: Walmart sells shoes that look kinda like Nikes. They don't feel like Nikes or perform like Nikes but they look like they might be the same... The don't have the swoosh on them and I'm sure the copy doesn't say Aimpoint anywhere on it. Walmart sells them to people who ca'nt afford to buy nikes nad wouldn't buy them even if there was no wallywordl Again, I don't even see where y'all are trying to come from on this. EDIT2: I just realzed i'm almost having an argument on the interweb and I can't allow that to happen, so y'all enjoy yourselves.

Even though you wont respond I will state that the very title of this thread has the word "clonepoint" in it, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Quoted: So dace what is so terribly wrong with his review? Have you handled original ARMS mounts and the King Arms knock offs? Did you do a hands on comparison? All you are doing is saying how much they suck. Someone went out and tested them and his results don't agree with what you think? He MUST be an idiot! \

Your kidding right?  I really hope you are......................

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What cracks me up the most is that "MILSPEC" is the best and it can do that and other things that will make everything eles look like shit. The .gov buys from the lowest bidder in most cases and in all probablity is the cheapest shit on the market. That may not include all cases, but I will bet dollars to donuts that aimpoint, colt, magpul, Boeing, lockheed, eotech, alice gear, or anything you want to think of that the .gov buys has failed. Iam in the AF(deployed to Afgainistan) and use this gear and let me tell you it could be better. Sometimes MILSPEC is not better. If you go broke having a hobby its the wrong hobby. Punching holes in paper does not require $500 optics. And I highly doubt that if you do buy it we will have a SHTF situation. Iron sights ought to be good for that anyhow.(how ya gonna get batteries?) BTW get off the airsoft bashing. Its pretty old, let'em have their fun. And if they want to put airsoft shit on their rifles/carbines let'em. Iam buyin the "Clonepoint" for my Bushy cause I want it. (I have used the MILSPEC aimpoint and cannot justify spending the money for personal use.) My rant is done. I have broken my own rule sorry. I heard all kinds of myths like that when I was in too.  I don't suppose you have a shred of proof to back it up?   Yes I can. I was a supply troop at my first job and I dealt very closely with the contracting folks to get parts. AFI 36-110 LRS procedures. AFMC OI 32-8901 from the SECAF which states clearly that all products and services will comply with all FAR's. If you can find them and can understand them cause they are not in english that you will understand. They do not state that everything will be bought on the cheap but 99.9% of the shit that is procured will be from the lowest bidder. Why do you think FNL builds the M-16 rifle? Cause they can make them the cheapest. Why do you think that we have the F-22? Cause it can do what the AF wants for the cheapest. If you read my post I stated that the .gov buys the cheapest IN MOST CASES. That is my shred of proof.

Clearly you do not understand .gov procurement.  

No, I'm serious.

I have no experience with the product that capt reviewed and I don't think you do either. Until I handle and evaaluate both of them side by side I'm not going to jump down his throat. Why do you?

I know Beltfed personally, and judging from his collection, he does not go for "cheap" things.  His Colts, HK, And TRP were not cheap, and the Krink he just got SBR'd sure as hell wasn't cheap either.  The fact that he cannot justify spending hundreds of dollars just to plink at paper and cans with an optic is his own business.

When he got it, I figured the guts of the thing can't be exactly like an Aimpoint, but I am not familiar with how they are built.  But now he has a red dot that will co-witness with his irons, and if he likes the setup, and when the thing breaks(Murphy's Law), chances are he will get an aimpoint.  

This is like shitting on someone because they bought a cheap beater truck.  It can't be relied or depended on, but it is filling the needs at the moment, and if it breaks, oh well, it was a cheap beater.

The rifle looks good.  

Quoted: The rifle looks good.

I agree. This thread has way too much arguing going on now :(

You guys sound like kids... Who cares if its cheap red dot/scope.  Maybe thats all he can afford.. I know im not gonna go blow several hundred dollars just to target shooting with.  Seriously you guys that talk shit on people who buy cheaper optics need to find better ways to spend your time.  Its getting annoying.  Damn near everything in this world is a copy of something.  If you would knock out every company that copied a product then you would only have a few companies left..  unbelievable..

Chairsofters= 10

Gear Queers= 0

This isn't about the quality of your gear or the cost of your gear. This is about not supporting manufacturers that blatantly steal other peoples patented designs.

I mean com'on. When it has to be explicitly stated that the optic is a replica and not the real thing there can be no argument that the optic is question is a unmitigated rip-off.

Beltfedleadhead, your carbine looks great!

If that was what fit in your budget or meets YOUR needs then I'm sure it will serve you well. As long as more people become interested in ARs and shooting them I think it's great! We come from all backgrounds, work all sorts of jobs and cover the pay scale from top to bottom. The important thing is you're here!

I can tell you from experience that these knock offs are not as good as the real thing.  I've used just about optic under the sun and this new crop of Aimpoint knock offs are typically very unreliable and do not stand up to abuse. I don't mean this as a dig to anyone but in my opinion 700 rounds at the local range isn't abuse. I have no problem with people buying them but you must be aware of their limitations. I know it wasn't you that said it but someone stated they thought they were the same thing. It's that type thinking that could get someone killed.

I can say with a certain degree of accuracy that 90% of the optics that go down in training classes (that I've attended) have been the knock offs. The other 10% was the early model EoTechs (rev A thru E). That's just my observation.

Again, if these fit in your budget and meet your particular needs go for it. I understand that not everyone trust their lives to their AR and equipment but please take the time to learn the limitations of all your equipment and plan accordingly.

Sal

Quoted: Quoted: No excuse based on economics will ever be enough to justify your part in the theft of copyrighted material. Plain and simple. It is about morality, and the topic speaks volumes regarding the character of the guilty parties.... ah come on man, you can't blame somebody for buying a cheap copy... It's like somebody buying a Tasco over the Leupold IMO.... and as far as copyrights. idunno, a tube wiht a red dot in it? /shrugs/ never downloaded a song either huh?

we are talking about patents not copyrights and noone here is recreating and selling songs without the original artist's consent.  Dumbass.  

You are a total idiot and say so yourself when you start comparing pickup trucks or plasma TVs.  That ARMS knockoff mount as well as the scope rings are 100% stolen ideas- Everything from the off-black anodizing to the locking levers and lightening holes are stolen and meant to look just like the ARMS products.

They were intended to mimick the ARMS products exactly so they could be used on Airsoft guns which were supposed to be clones of the real things.  There's nothing wrong with playing Airsoft and wanting your gun to look like the real thing.

There is a problem with idiots like you seeing no difference between Real firearms and gear and their Airsoft counterparts.  

Quoted: Chairsofters Clone Clowns= 0 Gear Queers= 10

Quoted: This isn't about the quality of your gear or the cost of your gear. This is about not supporting manufacturers that blatantly steal other peoples patented designs. I mean com'on. When it has to be explicitly stated that the optic is a replica and not the real thing there can be no argument that the optic is question is a unmitigated rip-off.

+2

These Goddamn things are made as replicas.  They are made to function on Airsoft guns.  How can you argue that they can or even should be used on a real weapon?  It's one thing to buy a cheap red dot scope because you cannot afford more, but don't go buying all of the Clone Clown Gear you can just because it looks like reddots sold for use on real weapons.  

At least Airsofters know they are playing with toys.  You sad little fuckers will cry all day swearing up and down these things aren't for toys when even the manufacturers intended them to be for toys.  

You might as well be wearing diapers to the range and saying they are also have a tactical purpose- so you can get in more training time and not have to worry about making a trip to the portajohn...

calm down dude, lets keep it on topic

fine-eotechs and aimpoints are top of the line, but they are also expensive-i for one want to play around with decent clones of each to decide which to buy.   i think this is a reasonable use of clones.    

So Aimpoints were adopted by the US mil in 1997? Patents last for 14 years. I guess the clones are no longer affected by patent laws then?

Quoted: fine-eotechs and aimpoints are top of the line, but they are also expensive-i for one want to play around with decent clones of each to decide which to buy.i think this is a reasonable use of clones.

FYI, there are no clones of EO Techs. The closest thing to the real thing is a Bushnell holosight.

With that being said, you're still better off buying used optics here in the Equipment Exchange for good prices. If you decide to resell a used, quality optic you will lose very little if any money and you won't be supporting thieves.

Quoted: Quoted: I mean he actually bought some airsoft ARMS rings and did a review of them compared with some real ARMS rings.  And he came out saying they were just as good. *DISCLAIMER* I have not the fogiest idea what thread you're talking about here. Was it maybe a joke or just something trying to rib people a little bit?

I am here because of this comment, if I am going to be referenced, then I am going to respond.

First Hand Knowledge:
Unlike a few other people here who are more than happy to comment on items that they have never actually put their hands on, I usually don’t speak unless I have first knowledge of what I am going to comment on. As such when asked about “Clones” by some friends and associates, I said “no comment”, because I had never seen or used any of them. When I was finally shown some of the Clones and asked to evaluate them, I agreed because I was very surprised to see that they appeared to be very close to the originals. I posted the evaluation of the ARMS Replicas to show that my comments are based on first hand knowledge. Based on that evaluation I saw no reason why the Clones would not be an acceptable replacement for use on a Range Firearm. Would I replace any of my real ARMS Rings or Mounts with them for use in a Military or Law Enforcement application, don’t think so.

Will Not Work on Real Firearms:
In various Topics, at least 10 people here have reported successfully using an Aimpoint Clone on a real firearm. “Successfully” being defined as: being able to obtain zero, retaining zero after round counts exceeding 500 rounds, and functioning overall as a “Red Dot Sight” should. I have verified successful operation of 5 different Clones to include mounts, scopes, and BUIS. I am not exactly sure how much more proof you need that these items will function satisfactorily on a real firearm, but I have a feeling that for some people there will never be enough proof, so enough said.

Moral / Ethical Issue:
No contest, no comment.

Take This Elsewhere / Here Goes ARFCOM Down the Tubes:
As a general rule I don’t read and reply to topics, that don’t interest me, don’t apply to me, and that I don’t have any first hand experience with. As such I am not real sure why it seems that everyone who has such an issue with “Clones” needs to jump into the middle of the Clone Topics. If you are having a discussion running on “Real Aimpoints” and someone jumps in and starts trying to tell you that a “Clone” is just as good, then unload on them and show them the door. However jumping in the middle of topic to do nothing but call members names, sling mud, and make baseless comments is not being of any real benefit to anyone in my book.

I also don’t get the running off the “experts”. I would guess they scan right past the “Clone” topics, probably because they see no point in reading or replying. Why is it that the anti-cloners screaming here can’t seem to do the same thing? If ARFCOM is supposed to be only for the BTDT Military and Law Enforcement types, then maybe it should be labeled accordingly, and credentials should be required for membership. I find it slightly hard to believe that the very few “Clone Topics” posted here are killing ARFCOM.

I would suspect that 60%-70% of the members here are “range warriors”, and as such they are not living or shooting to the standards of the Military and LE types. If Beltfedleadhead has an AR with a Clone Aimpoint that he is happy with, and is functioning as he needs it to on the range, who is anyone to be jumping his $@#! and telling him that he is poser and needs to go elsewhere to discuss his AR.

Oh well, I am glad to see that as AR owners that we are so willing to get along and help each other out.

Best of Luck,
“Capt Richardson”

Quoted: Quoted: Arfcom is going the way of the dodo for sure. BTW, lowest bidder does'nt mean CHEAPEST! I guess the lowest bidder means the most expensive? Or, do you mean that it is quality made for the lowest amount of money? Which when it comes down to it, that means it is the CHEAPEST!

See Grants last post before this one for what I meant, and I think you know that, or hope you do.  

What you are suprised...you should know by now that everyone forgets to check in their internet balls at the door...I mean come on?

This thread needs to get locked or put in the Wargamer's picture thread.

nice rifle BeltFed!

IBTL

Quoted: This thread needs to get locked or put in the Wargamer's picture thread.

No, it just needs you to stop being a
You've provided NOTHING of any relevance to any part of this thread.

Quoted: Quoted: This thread needs to get locked or put in the Wargamer's picture thread. No, it just needs you to stop being a You've provided NOTHING of any relevance to any part of this thread.

You contribute much less.  You spend all of your time in GD talking about Movies and shit like that.  

Airsoft is probably more prevalent where you are from so if you want to help- tell us a little about Airsoft and how big of a sport it is overseas.  These companies make these products for Airsoft guns, not real rifles, right?

After reading this thread I decided just to see how good my aimclone is compared to my friends real thing since he has deeper pockets than I . We both submerged the scopes in the bottom of his 12 ft pool for 24 hrs. They turned on and held zero after the test.

Frozen in fridge for 12 hrs - Both worked and held zero
Dropped from a 8 ft ladder - Both worked and held zero
Left battery on until they die - Both are still bright after 30 hrs of use.


So after all of this do I wish I had the real thing (yes). Can I afford it right now (no). So that why I have they clone because I can afford it and shit  " It fucking works for the range and fun shooting I do "  So flame away if you care. If the clone wasnt really a threat because it is an inferior scope. Why would aimpoint or trijicon care in the first place. Because people buy for quality correct ?