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?
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?