Why Aimpoint over Primary Arms?

Skadoosh · January 24, 2015, 10:33 AM

From my research, Primary Arms microdot scopes have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be rugged and reliable...as illustrated by various torture tests that can be found online. Now, even the battery run-time of Primary Arms optics are on par with Aimpoints.

However, one thing I have noticed is that very few who review them will go so far as to say that they would go into battle with a Primary Arms microdot mounted on their rifle. It seems that Primary Arms is "99% GTG"...while Aimpoints are 100% GTG.

What is it exactly that Aimpoint builds into their optics to make them battle-ready that Primary Arms doesn't? Could it be that it is simply because Primary Arms are Chinese-made, and thus, inherently sub-par? Or is it simply because they are just not documented battle-proven?

geetarman · January 24, 2015, 11:33 AM

If I had to hazard a guess, it would be the country of origin. I don't know the Chinese have really gotten the message that quality better be there before price takes control. They must be getting better as some big name Japanese firms ( Nikon for example ) are turning out scopes that say "Made in China " on them.

Nikon has a lot to lose if they don't measure up.

Skadoosh · January 24, 2015, 01:11 PM

So, Aimpoints are better because...they're manufactured in Sweden? That doesn't cut it for me.

If my understanding is correct, Primary Arms optics are cherry picked from among the best optics made in China, and the quality seems to be there.

So, again I ask...what features makes Aimpoint "SHTF ready" that Primary Arms does not?

BarryLee · January 24, 2015, 01:33 PM

Quote:

is it simply because they are just not documented battle-proven?

Often times people buy a product simply because a lot of other folks have used it with good results. The Aimpoint may not be a better product, but as I said in the mind of a lot of folks it is “proven”.

Skadoosh · January 24, 2015, 03:28 PM

Surviving repeated torture testings isn't proof enough?

geetarman · January 24, 2015, 07:06 PM

I did not say Aimpoints are better. At this point they have a pretty good track record. You did ask for opinions and that is what I gave you. Try one of each and sell the one you don't like. Who knows. . .maybe they are better than Aimpoint.

My rifles are already fitted out. If I were to add another optic to another rifle and the lGS had one of these Chinese units in stock, I would sure look at it.

I do know that I stll have a first issue Aimpoint that I bought back in 1980 or so that still works. Just have to special order the batteries.

Snyper · January 24, 2015, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Surviving repeated torture testings isn't proof enough?

Aimpoint has demonstrated great performance for decades
My original Aimpoint 1000 from the 80's still works great

But you can choose whichever brand you think is better
30 years from now you'll know if it's as good

January 24, 2015, 10:33 AM	#1
Skadoosh Senior Member Join Date: December 13, 2010 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 2,016	Why Aimpoint over Primary Arms? From my research, Primary Arms microdot scopes have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be rugged and reliable...as illustrated by various torture tests that can be found online. Now, even the battery run-time of Primary Arms optics are on par with Aimpoints. However, one thing I have noticed is that very few who review them will go so far as to say that they would go into battle with a Primary Arms microdot mounted on their rifle. It seems that Primary Arms is "99% GTG"...while Aimpoints are 100% GTG. What is it exactly that Aimpoint builds into their optics to make them battle-ready that Primary Arms doesn't? Could it be that it is simply because Primary Arms are Chinese-made, and thus, inherently sub-par? Or is it simply because they are just not documented battle-proven? __________________ NRA Life Member USN Retired

January 24, 2015, 11:33 AM	#2
geetarman Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 3,157	If I had to hazard a guess, it would be the country of origin. I don't know the Chinese have really gotten the message that quality better be there before price takes control. They must be getting better as some big name Japanese firms ( Nikon for example ) are turning out scopes that say "Made in China " on them. Nikon has a lot to lose if they don't measure up. __________________ Geetarman Carpe Cerveza

January 24, 2015, 01:11 PM	#3
Skadoosh Senior Member Join Date: December 13, 2010 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 2,016	So, Aimpoints are better because...they're manufactured in Sweden? That doesn't cut it for me. If my understanding is correct, Primary Arms optics are cherry picked from among the best optics made in China, and the quality seems to be there. So, again I ask...what features makes Aimpoint "SHTF ready" that Primary Arms does not? __________________ NRA Life Member USN Retired

January 24, 2015, 03:28 PM	#5
Skadoosh Senior Member Join Date: December 13, 2010 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 2,016	Surviving repeated torture testings isn't proof enough? __________________ NRA Life Member USN Retired

January 24, 2015, 07:06 PM	#6
geetarman Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 3,157	I did not say Aimpoints are better. At this point they have a pretty good track record. You did ask for opinions and that is what I gave you. Try one of each and sell the one you don't like. Who knows. . .maybe they are better than Aimpoint. My rifles are already fitted out. If I were to add another optic to another rifle and the lGS had one of these Chinese units in stock, I would sure look at it. I do know that I stll have a first issue Aimpoint that I bought back in 1980 or so that still works. Just have to special order the batteries. __________________ Geetarman Carpe Cerveza