Trijicon Credo HX Fail

[omicron1792]

It seems the OP's question has been answered, and the remainder of the thread is stuck on what constitutes a QA or QC failure. I was a manufacturing engineer for a couple years, so this is not an opinion-piece--it is just how the language is properly used.

First, the fact is that this is recognized as a defect by both consumers and the manufacturers. So regardless of how intensive or nonintensive the manufacturer's QA/QC process is, it is just classified as QC and/or QA failure, full stop. Recognize that all things can and do fail, and this is not unique to any scope manufacturer.

Different manufacturers have different approaches to quality. Some do minimal QA/QC for the lower prices and just hand out replacements as needed. And some do intensive QA/QC, demanding higher prices but resulting in fewer warranty claims. Safe to assume that Trijicon is in the latter group, meaning they do legitimate QA checks before packaging.

SCENARIO
If a quality tech looked through the scope and saw no flakes because there were no flakes at the time, the scope passed the QA process. If that same scope then later had internal flakes dislodged (for whatever reason) becoming visible to the user, it was because of a QC failure in the manufacturing process. Could have been internal coating failure, foreign debris accumulation, doesn't matter--it now fails the quality standard because of a control failure upstream in the assembly line. A lack of a control measure is a failure, and a failure of an existing control measure is (of course) a failure.

So, regardless of how REASONABLE it is that the QA process didn't catch this, this example would be still be considered a QC failure, or BOTH a QC and QA failure. That is because one could argue that the QA process can be changed to catch this specific item.

BUT, what I think most are trying to say is that this is likely RECOGNIZED and deemed an ACCEPTABLE QC failure by Trijicon. This is both a MINOR failure, a failure of LOW PROBABILITY (for it not to be caught by a QA tech, but later dislodged in shipping), and it is quickly/easily corrected by swapping scopes with the customer, and beating the customer scope with a phone book (or actually disassembled and cleaned, I have no clue what they would do with the scope)

Basically, the QA or QC process(es) they would have to adopt to 100% eliminate this failure would not be cost effective.

What a fantastic post.

 

[JGRaider]

No it wouldn’t. Did it totally fail to function as an aiming device out of the box? Did it lose zero? If not, then no it’s not a scope failure it’s debris. All scope brand/make/model at times have it. I’ve had multiple S&B’s, Zeiss, Vortex, and yes Leupold’s with it/ none of the were “failures”. One of the Vortex Razors in the field eval had a speck on the lens- I didn’t even mention it, because it’s nothing.

This isn’t the first time debris in lenses has come up. It isn’t a scope “failure”, and it isn’t a “QC” failure. You can all but guarantee that scope didn’t look like that when it left the factory. Most scopes have a grease inside specifically to catch dust and debris that is inside, every once in a while it instead gets on a lens. You take it and smack it in a paper back book. Most likely that is what the factory will do when it is sent in anyways.

You can't guarantee anything regarding what a scope looks like when it leaves the factory. Not that long ago a new SWFA was shown here with a canted reticle. I doubt that happened during shipping. QC departments do miss stuff occasionally, just the way it is when humans are involved.