Everything You Would Want to Know about a Aimpoint ML2 Copy

[MAX100]

Here is all of the info anyone would want to know about the Aimpoint copy before they purchase one. The China manufacture, Where to buy, the best of the copies and a torture test and review. The Tactpoint in the test review below was made in Japan. I find them to be an excellent low cost alternative the Aimpoint ML2 sight. I have listed two versions below. One is very low cost and made in China with no warranty. The other is made in Japan cost $150 comes with a lifetime Guarantee and is waterproof. The made in Japan version would be the best for serious use.

The Aimpoint Copy China Manufacture also makes SPOT, did at one time or still does make Tacpoint:

All of the made in China Aimpoint clones are made by XDoptics in China. They make or have made Firearm optics for many American and Foreign scope companies. They have a manufacture website that shows the Aimpoiunt copy in their lineup.

Here is XDoptics Website Link showing the Aimpoint Clone. They also make the mounts. These are not toys.

http://owenge.en.ec21.com/product_de...ot_Sight_M2000



Where to buy the Best of the Low Cost Aimpoint Copies:
http://www.airsoftvanguard.com/index...29&submit.y=13


Where to buy the Best Aimpoint copy made in Japan with a lifetime Guarantee. They state that they are water proof and they offer a model that is compatible with night vision. This would be your best bet for serious use.

http://www.nightvis.com/Weapon_Sight...pon_Sight.html

http://www.shotplus.com/shop/product...roductid=16157


The Tenebraex Kill flash ARD sold at Midway USA fit the Aimpoint copies. You may need a Butler Creek flip open cap with it for it to work.

The 3x magnifiers and most of the mounts they sale are excellent.


Aimpoint ML2 copy Abuse test "by photoman", AR15.com member, a Police Officer and experienced shooter.[/B]

Back when the whole Tacpoint/Aimpoint mess blew up here on AR15.com I was contemplating buying an Aimpoint for my M4 clone. I wasn't really sure about it though. I have a couple shooting buddies that have them on their guns so I've shot with them before. But I just wasn't sure that a red to sight was something I wanted. I didn't want to drop $300+ on a sight that I might end up not liking and than have to sell it.

Enter the Tacpoint:

I decided in October of 2004 that I'd pick up a Tacpoint Tac-1(Blue Ring)from Texas Tactical to see how I liked using a red dot. Seeing that the Tacpoint is a copy of the Aimpoint it was the logical, and less expensive route to take to see if I would like an Aimpoint on my gun.

But that wasn't the only reason I picked it up. I wanted to abuse this optic. I wanted to beat it like a rented mule to see how it would hold up to rough use.

First Impressions:

When the Tacpoint showed up at my door it was 1 day before I was to leave for a Defensive Edge Carbine 1&2 class. I didn't have a lot of time to look it over and play with it. I had to get it mounted and sighted in. Before mounting it in a quick release QRW mount I played with it real quick, checking the power knob, it was nice for all of the first day. It wasn't mushy between power settings, and the click when it got to a power setting was pretty audible. After a day though it started getting mushy, and the click wasn't as audible. I've had a couple instances since when the scope would turn on inside the gun case. I don't like that, but what are ya going to do. The caps that came with it looked rather flimsy, but so far they have held up. Other than those and a few other small things I'll get into later, I am not really disappointed with the Tacpoint, though I didn't hold any high expectations either.

Let the Beatings Begin:

After getting the optic mounted I headed to the range, besides the initial zero I had one other objetive. To start abusing this scope. I sighted it in at 50 yards. After that I removed the optic from the gun and threw it down range about 25 yards(I was the only one there). I retrieved it, put it back on the gun and fired 10 rounds. Zero was still good. So i took it off and threw it again. After putting it back on the rifle I put another 10rounds down range, no shift in zero. Ok so third time is a charm right. Nope, I threw it down range again and watched it bounce end over end a couple times, put it on the rifle and shot another 10 rounds. Still no zero shift. Hmmmm, I dumped what was left of the 30rd mag and packed up.

The next day I was off to the Defensive Edge class. I had planned to use the Tacpoint for this class, but decided that since this was my first formal carbine class I would use my regular set up. The Tacpoint did see some use. I used it on my backup gun for 3 drills and a total of 30 rounds or so. It also got a few good tosses into the air the first morning of class, with no harm done to the optic.

About a week after the class I met up with MisterPX to work on some of the stuff we learned. The Tacpoint was going to get it's first serious range time, but not without a good throw to rough it up a bit first. After that I put it on the rifle and went to loading my pistol mags. In the process I managed to bump the AR and sent it crashing to the ground oops. The Tacpoint took the brunt of the fall from about 3ft up onto the hard gravel. It was no worse for the wear, and doesn't really show any signs of the fall. After that It was on to the shooting. I put about 500 rounds down range that day, and the Tacpoint never missed a beat.

After that I decided that it needed to feel a little more power under it, so I mounted it on my 308 and started banging away, I'd shoot 10 rounds, throw the scope, shoot 10 throw the scope and so on. I did that for 100 rounds. It's still ticking. So I switched it over to my 30-06 and shot 40 rounds from that, tossing the scope after 20 rounds, it still kept going. After that range day the Tacpoint sat in the trunk of my car through deer season until thanksgiving weekend.

Thanksgiving weekend I met up with MisterPX, El_Roto and Mugenlude to do a little shooting. I dug the Tacpoint out of the car and found it actually had stayed turned off. I turned it on and it fired right up the dot was a little weak at first but the optic was cold so it should be expected. I've seen similar happen with Aimpoints and have seen some discussion of this aorund the board too. I didn't shoot to much with the Tacpoint that day, but it did get thrown around some more. In fact on one throw it hit that cold hard ground with enough force to pop the lens cover off the rear lens this was the first time this had happened. No scratches, scrapes or cracked lenses. I was happy. And those flimsy scope covers, well they are still flimsy, but they haven't broken or come apart yet.


The Abuse to come:

I still have a couple guns that the Tacpoint needs to be tried out on, including the 12ga and the AK. I also want to see if a buddy will let me mount it on his 1919 semi-auto with a crank on it. I'd love to crank off a belt or two to see how the Tacpoint holds up on that. I still have a couple of other tests I'd like to do to it too. One being a water test, both salt water and fresh water. But before I do those I want to run it through a complete carbine course, good thing the Wisconsin crew is doing another one in May.

It has spent 24hrs buried in snow recently and come out working. The dot on the first setting was a bit weak at first but once it warmed up a bit it went right back to being nice and bright again. It's going back out for another 24hr's in the snow soon.

I'm still trying to think of a few more things to do to this optic, to test it's durability. But I think so far what it's been through has proven one thing. It can take some abuse and keep ticking.

I never looked at the tacpoint as a replacment/alternative to the Aimpoint in a life or death situation, like say over in the sandbox, or even as a sight I'd put on a gun that I was planing to use as a home defense weapon, or duty weapon if I were a LEO. But if you want something less expesive for a rifle that you only shoot at the range, or that isn't your go to gun when things go bump in the night, the Tacpoint seems to be a good buy to me at this time. That may change as I beat and abuse it some more. Right now though, I'm impressed with the "toy" optic. Though I'm still not sold on dot sights. I know the advantages of them, but somethings aren't for everybody. So even if I decide I don't want to get an Aimpoint for the M4 clone, I think I'll keep this tacpoint around if it survives the next couple months and use it for a .22lr upper for tree rat hunting.

I'll come back and update this as I abuse the optic more, and i'll update this after the DE carbine class too.


Here is my Tacpoint update.........

I replaced the caps with Butler Creek caps from the get go. I have nothing to say about the durability of the factory caps.

I ran the unit at max power for a week straight, at the end of the week the dot was too dim for bright sunlight use. Still good enough for shaded areas or indoors. I stopped the testing at that point due to it being mounted on a duty weapon that must be kept serviceable at all times.

The clicks are 1/2 MOA it took me 9 rounds (3 round groups) to zero at 50 yards. I was using one inch grid paper, the clicks proved to be accurate.

I used the Tacpoint at a L.E. CQB course. It was subjected to the typical shocks and bumps consistent with CQB work and held it zero.

I believe it is a fine sight for the money.

More to follow......

The Aimpoint Copy Abuse test Link: Read the post for yourself and all of the replies to the post. I hope this helps some of you out.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.htm...=208728&page=4

GC

[jthai]

Those Aimpoints on the airsoftvanguard website look pretty good. Are these the same ones you have? Did you order them for this site?

[MAX100]

All of the Aimpoint copies that are made in China are made by XDoptics. I bought the two I have off of Ebay from the seller that owns this airsoft website. He sales on Ebay also. I have the Aimpoint copy with the logo engraved into the metal. It came with the quick release lever mount. It is a very nice looking Aimpoint copy. Here is one of my AP copies mounted on my Mossberg 930 SPX.





GC

[69Mach1]

TAG.
Thanks.

[jthai]

MAX, thanks for the response and useful info! What's the guys ebay seller name? I feel more comfortable buying through ebay than his website. Thanks again~

[MAX100]

The website is safe. You pay by PayPal and they always sides with the buyer. If you put in for a refund you will get it, Guaranteed.

I don't remember the sellers Ebay name but he has a Ebay store. The Red dot sights, mounts, green lasers, scopes and flashlights are all good quality products.


GC

[Jicko]

Originally Posted by MAX100

Here is all of the info anyone would want to know about the Aimpoint copy before they purchase one. The China manufacture, Where to buy, the best of the copies and a torture test and review.

Why isn't there any mention in your review that these indeed violate intellectual property rights of Aimpoint?

Since those are "illegal" products, should we buy them?

If there are "illegal" guns for sale, should we buy them?

*sigh*

[MAX100]

That is for the Swedish company Aimpoint to worry about. Unless you have stock in the company I don't see why you care. I don't have stock in the company and I don't care. I doesn't matter to me if it has the Aimpoint Logo on it or not. I just want a good red dot sight for a good price.

There products are way over priced. The Aimpoint ML2 is a very simple designed and low cost to manufacture. It is very easy to copy and copy well.


GC

[Jicko]

The bottomline is... it is still illegal...

It is EASY to get illegal firearms... it is EASY to make our legal OLL rifle into AW.... should we do it?

It is overpriced... but they spent in researhc.... and their research end up making a good product..... why don't these COPY companies come up with their own EASY products.... but instead... they go COPY... and sell cheap... the ONLY reason why they can sell CHEAP is that they COPY instead of INVENT....

I don't have stock in Aimpoint, ie. i don't own them and i do not benefit from them..... but buying from criminals means that we are ENCOURAGING this activity....

Originally Posted by MAX100

I don't have stock in the company and I don't care. I doesn't matter to me if it has the Aimpoint Logo on it or not.

Do you want to be encouraging some robbers to rob your home? Or encourage some robbers to rob someone else home!? Or if it is NOT YOUR home, then you don't care..... as long as it is NOT your property????

Lastly, did you mention anything about not having ANY relationship with
airsoftvanguard.com, or is that your own company that you are promoting?

[REDHORSE]

Jicko,

They are not exactly like the Aimpoints. They lack the CET technology. Battery life is no where near the Aimpoints. They also use different batteries. They coatings on the lenses are different to.

Internally I think they are completely different animals.

Exteriorly the look like Aimpoints, but they are just simple red-dots that look like Aimpoint models.

There is a difference. I have a real Aimpoint and one of these knock-offs. They look the same, but function very differently.

The Aimpoints are parallax free, where the dot stays on target, if you keep the rifle still, yet move your eyes around. The red-dot stays on target and always indicate where the bullet will go.

With the Chinese knock off, the dot moves all over the place, if you move your eye and keep the rifle still.

With the knock-off, I have to align the red/green dot on top of the front sight post... to shoot point of aim. If I don't keep the dot on top of the FIS, it's going to be off target if I pull the trigger.

They only thing they may violate is with the trademark name. If the knock-off is so marked as an Aimpoint.

[MAX100]

The two red dot only Aimpoint copies I have are parallax free. The review I posted said nothing about the Tacpoint not being parallax free. He did a very through review and he would have mentioned it if it were so. The review speaks for it's self.

The lenses quality on the Aimpoint copy is very close to that of the Aimpoint. As for the CET technology, who cares. Do you know how many batteries I can buy for $400. None of this justifies spending an extra $400.

Fact:The dot on the Aimpoint copy is brighter on it's highest setting than the Aimpoint on it's highest setting. That is on the red dot only Aimpoint copy sights. That is not so on the Red/Green dot models.

I have owned and sold the real Aimpoint sights. I think I will stick with the copies I have.


GC

[Toten Kopf]

I have used the TacPoint for a number of years and have fired over 3000 rounds without any problems. No, I haven't thrown the thing or jumped up and down on it but it has functioned very well for my puposes (cost $89.00).

[tdo315]

My late uncle used to say "Buy it nice or buy it twice". I think that applies here....

The only thing these red Chinese clones have in common with the real deal is the "Aimpoint" on the side. I would save my $89 and put it towards the real deal.

[jthai]

Thanks again for all the info guys. I respect everyone's opinion but it's all relative. I'd like the real deal but this compromise allows me to buy text books for this semester. Plus with the cost of ammo nowadays, I haven't shot in over 2 months. For my situation, the brand equity is out of my price range and the utility just isn't there.

[MAX100]

jthai

When you get your AP copy and have a chance to try it out tell us what you think about it.


GC

[Prc329]

I was going to use my clonepoint till I bought a real one. Only one problem. It works to well. 600 rounds sitting on that scout mount and its still kicking. Holds zero and works even after one 100 round rapid fire session that got the scout mount so hot I couldn't touch it. I was trying to cook it. Didn't work just kept on kicking.

[Pryde]

Originally Posted by MAX100

The lenses quality on the Aimpoint copy is very close to that of the Aimpoint. As for the CET technology, who cares. Do you know how many batteries I can buy for $400. None of this justifies spending an extra $400.

Where are you getting this figure?
The clonepoints are about $60-70 including shipping

You can get an Aimpoint with mount for about $375 if you shop around and the mount itself is worth at least $50.

So really, you are saving about $250, but the fact that you are exaggerating the price so much shows your agenda.

[MAX100]

Pryde You are taking this to personal.

The AP ML2 only comes with a basic low cost 30mm ring. Most replace that cheap 30mm ring with a nicer mount like comes with the AP copies. The $42 AP copy comes with a very nice cantilever mount that would cost around $60. The $55 AP copy comes with a very nice copy of the A.R.M.S 22M68 QR Throw mount that would cost $110. That is where I get my figures.

The AP copy with the nicer copy of the ARMS 22M68 mount cost $55 shipped. The AP ML2 with the cheap 30mm ring mount cost $375 or more + $hipping. With a A.R.M.S 22M68 mount the cost balloons to over $500 with shipping.

We will go with your very conservative misleading $250 figure. Do you know how many batteries I can buy for $250?

Here is my very nice well made AP copy with the nice well made copy of the A.R.M.S 22M68 mount on my AK47. This AP copy with mount cost me $55, VS. the real AP ML2 with the same type of mount would cost around $500.




GC

[Sydwaiz]

I'm with Jicko. I personally know how Aimpoint feels and absolutely refuse to buy a chinese copy. I've had a chinese company copy one of my patented products and import it into the US. You have no idea how violated you feel when this happens.

[Toten Kopf]

Originally Posted by Sydwaiz

I'm with Jicko. I personally know how Aimpoint feels and absolutely refuse to buy a chinese copy. I've had a chinese company copy one of my patented products and import it into the US. You have no idea how violated you feel when this happens.

I understand what your saying, however, for me it's like a rifle scope. To me they all basically look alike, yes, some scopes do look a little different and some cost more or less than others. Should I not buy one scope just because it looks like another?

Look at AR15 receivers for example, originally Armilite made the receiver, then Colt (who bought the rights), now everyone is making/selling them. Would you say the same thing in this situation?

I understand that there are patent rights and what not, but if that is not of a concern, I don't see a problem.

[69Mach1]

Originally Posted by Toten Kopf

I have used the TacPoint for a number of years and have fired over 3000 rounds without any problems. No, I haven't thrown the thing or jumped up and down on it but it has functioned very well for my puposes (cost $89.00).

OK, I need to know where you got that AK rear site base, please.

[Toten Kopf]

Originally Posted by 69Mach1

OK, I need to know where you got that AK rear site base, please.

They were originally made by ACE. The AKSMS (AK Scope Mount Short) replaced the rear sight as it had a integrated AR15 windage ajustable flip sight and also allowed the mounting of Weaver/Picatinny sighting systems. Full disassembly of the rifle was accomplished without having to remove the mount.

They are no longer in production.

[Jicko]

Originally Posted by Toten Kopf

Look at AR15 receivers for example, originally Armilite made the receiver, then Colt (who bought the rights), now everyone is making/selling them. Would you say the same thing in this situation?

I understand that there are patent rights and what not, but if that is not of a concern, I don't see a problem.

STOLEN IP, STOLEN goods are STOLEN! Illegal! That's the bottomline, no matter how nicely dressing it you want to call it, to justify your cause.

If they just want to make a reddot scope, they DO NOT need to make it *looks* like an AIMPOINT. Their whole reason for making it *looks* like an AIMPOINT is that "the look", "copy".... SELL.... would you have bought it if it doesn't LOOK like an AIMPOINT? That LOOK = $$

Don't even compare it to the whole AR15 thing, AR15 is MIL-SPEC, public domain..... I thought the US Gov't made it that way (they probably paid for it).... NONE of the AR manufacturers are putting Armalite's logo on their products neither!!!!!!!

If AIMPOINT ever made their design "public domain".... then, I would say, those "copies" are OK as long as they don't put the "AIMPOINT" name on their products for "trademark violations".

Anyways, buying STOLEN goods are encouraging CRIMINALS. (period)

[MAX100]

That is for the Swedish company Aimpoint to worry about. I don't care. They way over change for their products. They charge $400 for a magnifier. What a Rip Off.

Their ML2 sight is worth no more than $200.


GC

[maxicon]

The legality is not as simple as that. The only clear-cut one is trademark violations, which are not an issue with all of these sights (but are with some).

Note that there's a difference between patent violations and trademark violations, and neither one may cover a look-alike design with different mechanisms and no infringing trademark. These issues are generally worked out in civil court, rather than criminal.

The Aimpoint logo is a trademark. This is a fairly straightforward thing to protect in a court of law. The look and feel is a whole different matter - Burris openly sells an Aimpoint look-alike, and they're not being sued by Aimpoint.

The other protection in such cases is the patent, which generally applies to a specific design or mechanism, not a look and feel. I'd guess the Aimpoint look-alikes don't copy any patented Aimpoint mechanisms, but I haven't had them apart to check.

Also, being mil-spec doesn't make something public domain - the Aimpoint is mil-spec, with an NSN number, as are countless other products covered by patents and trademarks. The AR15 receiver was originally designed by Armalite, who sold the rights to Colt. Colt holds the trademark to AR15 and AR-15 still (as well as HBAR, Match Target, Commando, CAR, M16, and others), so no, it's not exempt from these arguments. If you have an AR-15 lower that's not Colt or Armalite, are you infringing?

Finally, there's a big difference between stolen goods and look-alikes. Stolen good are items that have been taken from the rightful owner without payment. This is illegal just about everywhere. Copies are made by someone else, and may be legal in some jurisdictions. Claiming a Burris XTR-135 is stolen and buying one encourages criminals because it looks like an Aimpoint isn't a valid argument, and has no grounding in law.

[Pryde]

Originally Posted by MAX100

That is for the Swedish company Aimpoint to worry about. I don't care. They way over change for their products. They charge $400 for a magnifier. What a Rip Off.

Their ML2 sight is worth no more than $200.


GC

So if a chinese company made a replica of an EOtech for $100, you would not buy one? Eotech also charges over $400 for their magnifier.

[MAX100]

I am not a fan of the Eotech sights. I would rather have a AP copy or a Millett DMS-1, 1X4X24mm scope.

They do make a copy of the Eotech. One is just a red dot sight for $80, I believe. The other is Holographic and it cost around $200.

The AP copy magnifiers cost $80 and they are excellent. Many are buying them to use with their Aimpoint and EOtech sights.

Aimpoint and Eotech charges $400 for a magnifier. What a rip off.

I am very happy with my AP copy purchases and so are many.


GC

[Toten Kopf]

I'm getting the feeling that it's not about trademarks, patent rights or what ever...

It's what I have versus what you have. I don't care what the item looks like, if it fits my purpose and I can afford it, I'll buy it. Your rightious and I'm not, because you buy an Aimpoint and I buy a TacPoint...

This subject was hashed out till it was a dead horse and it still ended up as, "I have the real thing and you don't." Go and spend your money on what you feel you want, if you want an Aimpoint/Eotech then buy one, but don't even tell me how or what I should do/buy.

End Of Line...

[Sydwaiz]

I can't make you but I can tell you what you should and should not buy. But it's ultimately up to you wether or not to do it. If people want to keep supporting a communist country and help insure that they take over the world then go right ahead. I'll sleep better at night knowing that I hadn't. I make every effort to not support them when I can but I realize sometimes it's inevitable so save your speaches about "I'm sure you own something made in China" crap. Outsourcing is one thing, I just wish they wouldn't so blatently knock off everything else and try to take advantage of people.

Bottom line for me is; There ain't no Chicom crap going on my American gun!

Maybe on my chicom guns though...hmm, communists copying communists, how does that work into all of this?!

[Toten Kopf]

Okay, so everyone will understand. My TacPoint is "NOT" Chicom, it's Japanese.

The name on the sight is "TacPoint" not Aimpoint. Other models of the same item are made under a different name...

http://www.houtsenterprises.com/AALS...OT-AAL_MR.html

http://www.snakerun.com/Strike%20Dot.htm

For me, these sights are just like AR15 receivers, first made by one company, now made by many.

Oh, as far as supporting a Chicom country...Arghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

[MAX100]

My Aimpoint copies are made in China and very made made. I don't care what anyone thinks.


GC

[maxicon]

Yes, the StrikeDot is the old Hakko Tacpoint, made in Japan, now sold by Ultradot. It's been around for quite a while in one form or another, and has a decent, but not great, reputation. The original Ultradots are better.

[DRM6000]

i don't want to get into the argument, but i'd like to express my thoughts.

i refuse to knowingly and intentionally buy imitation products whatever they may be. knock-offs are inferior products, period. there is no comparison to the real thing no matter how hard you try to compare them.

i'd rather pay significantly more (however much it may hurt) to buy the genuine item. part of what you pay for is the support the company offers in the event the product breaks or malfunctions. heck, most of the time there is even somebody nice enough to help in the event of an operator error.

[FlyingPen]

I don't side with either way but I did hear an interesting argument about this.

Basically, it forces companies to innovate even faster and accelerate their product cycles, a good for consumers. The same thing happens in fashion.

Was browsing that site, is this any good or is it crap?

http://www.airsoftvanguard.com/index...lang=en&id=153

How are their reflex sights?

[maxicon]

The scope in your link is a cheap Chinese 4x scope in a body that looks like an Acog. You could get the same thing buying a normal Chinese 4x32 scope for half the price, but it won't look tacticool.

This is true of most Chinese knock-offs. You're not getting a clone, you're getting a look-alike. That is, it may look the same, but internally, it's unpredictable what you've got. This works better with red dots, as the optical quality is much less critical than with magnified scopes.

As far as innovation, that really only works where the knock-offs are functionally similar. For instance, knock-off Eotechs are just LED red dot sights, not laser holosights, so there's really no incentive for Eotech to innovate due to the knock-offs. Their competition is the Aimpoint, with its far superior battery life (which you don't get with the knock-offs).

If you're going to buy a knock-off, you're better off with a knock-off Aimpoint, as you get similar functionality (that is, a red dot in a co-witness package), without the extreme battery life or battle tested reliability. With Eotech or Acog knock-offs, you get LED instead of laser (for Eotech) or mediocre glass (for Acog). You still don't get the reliability or battery life.

[MAX100]

I agree with maxicon post.

They do make a Holographic Eotech copy but they cost $210. I wouldn't pay that when you can have a Bushnell for about the same cost.

Also the Leupold M3 and M1 copy scopes on the Airsoft wedsite are not comparable the the real thing. Stick with the Green lasers, mounts, Aimpoint copies and magnifiers. All of these are good quality.


GC

[Romak]

ok im liking the look of a cheaper Aimpoint. but i dont like the idea of buying one from a site with Airsoft in it. did you get your actual clones from this site or is this something you found after you already had them. i just want to know if they are the same quality as the Tacpoints or the sightmarks. and who i would contact or if at all they have a warrinty. the more im looking the more i like these.

http://www.talonarms.com/talonarms/i...oducts_id=1057

[maxicon]

The Sightmark's another decent look-alike, according to people who use them. The one you linked to is in a low mount, and won't work well on an AR without another mount, but will be fine on a traditional rifle.

Another inexpensive look-alike that gets good reviews (I have one that has worked fine so far) is the 1337tactical model:
http://1337tactical.com/shop/product...?productId=111

It's cheaper, at $75, and comes in either a high or low mount. The guy who sells them provides good support if you get a bad one. There's someone selling one for $50 shipped on the arfcom EE, but it'll be gone very quickly.

[Romak]

cool thanks i think im gona get the one from 1337tactical. ive read a couple of good reviews on it. im not to much worried about the mount, im going to be putting it on an AK anyway. i just dont see the point in spending more for the scope than the gun is worth..... thats y i aint gona get the real deal, might be a differant story if i was getting it for an AR.

[jthai]

Got mine awhile back and still haven't used it yet. Here are some comparison pics next to my buddy's Comp M3.