Q&A Swarovski Z3 3-10x42mm Field Eval

Formidilosus

Not A Moderator
Shoot2HuntU
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
12,091
See-

 
Who donated their 12 ounce swaro to be wrecked? When the manufacturer tells you going above 18 in/lb on ring screws will bind the erector it seems obvious that such a scope wouldn't be long for this world when mounted to a heavy'ish rifle and dropped on the ground.
 
Who donated their 12 ounce swaro to be wrecked? When the manufacturer tells you going above 18 in/lb on ring scews with bind the erector it seems obvious that such a scope wouldn't be long for this world when mounted to a heavy'ish rifle and dropped on the ground.

The gentlemen was warned, but he wanted to see what happened. To Swaro’s credit, they have been relatively honest that their scopes aren’t made for that hard of use…. And a 12 ounce Swaro with a bent eyepiece adjusts, tracks, and holds zero better than 4x of Leupold’s premier hunting scopes did.
 
The big question I have that maybe is difficult to quantify is: How much money and time would it cost the scope manufacturers to redesign scopes, drop test them independently, and put out a product consumers can actually rely on?

I know there are consumers that do not educate themselves (I was one of them for a long time) and companies can essentially churn out substandard products that will be bought. Financially though I would think it would end up making a company so much money to just eat the cost up front and make a rock solid product.

Thanks for changing the way I see optics and shooting, Form! I know you commit tons of time to this and it is really appreciated.
 
Yeah, seriously, Ive donated a grand total of fifty bucks to this scope tossing endeavor, and people are sacrificing multiple of their scopes. Serious props.
 
The big question I have that maybe is difficult to quantify is: How much money and time would it cost the scope manufacturers to redesign scopes, drop test them independently, and put out a product consumers can actually rely on?

I know there are consumers that do not educate themselves (I was one of them for a long time) and companies can essentially churn out substandard products that will be bought. Financially though I would think it would end up making a company so much money to just eat the cost up front and make a rock solid product.

Thanks for changing the way I see optics and shooting, Form! I know you commit tons of time to this and it is really appreciated.


Well, Trijicon did it in less than two years and didn’t go bankrupt. Revic has apparently done it, and didn’t go bankrupt.

The answer is it that it is completely doable even if they just did so with each new model- Leupold brings out a “updated” model every 3-5 years under the guise of “for super serial we fixed everything this time guys!”; after yelling constantly that there was nothing wrong at all with their scopes for years prior… while they were failing constantly.

The reality is they don’t care to fix them. It is most likely a combination of the people in charge only care about growth every quarter, not the product itself- because they aren’t hunters and shooters.
The people that do “hunt“ and “shoot” are the average people that hunt and shoot, which means 0-50 rounds a year and checking zero and adjustments every year is just normal, which means nothing is wrong with the scopes. And lastly, the average buyer of the product which you see constantly on here- they just defend it with no critical thought, rationality, or objectivity; yet are emotionally invested for some reason to the “brand”.
The last one is the most ridiculous, but you see it with sports obviously- someone doesn’t play a sport, has never played the sport, doesn’t know anyone playing the sport, are just a money machine for the sports/team who doesn’t know they exist or care about them in the slightest, the team is garbage and loses nonstop- yet people are emotionally invested in “their” team.

Leupold specifically has harnessed this process better than anyone- people “see” themselves in Leupold. Granddaddy used them, papa used them, “x” guide uses them, the “military” used them; they are made (assembled) in America- BY GOD THEY’RE THEIR GREAT!
 
The last one is the most ridiculous, but you see it with sports obviously- someone doesn’t play a sport, has never played the sport, doesn’t know anyone playing the sport, are just a money machine for the sports/team who doesn’t know they exist or care about them in the slightest, the team is garbage and loses nonstop- yet people are emotionally invested in “their” team.
you didnt need to attack @Ryan Avery and his cowboys so viciously
 
The big question I have that maybe is difficult to quantify is: How much money and time would it cost the scope manufacturers to redesign scopes, drop test them independently, and put out a product consumers can actually rely on?

Most of the scope brands dont truly design and manufacture their scopes. They send specs/requests to the same actual manufacturers as most of the other brands. Light Optic Works in Japan manufactures a bunch of the scopes that perform well on the testing in this forum so if reliability and zero retention is truly a focus, the Brands should be able to spec such and have a good chance of a favorable outcome.
 
Back
Top