When the AVs were introduced there were relatively a lot of issues with the reliability particularly the 3-9 version. That is where the bad press came from and it was justified. We were Swaro dealers at that time.
Complicating the reliability issue was the sales structure. Swaro was dealer direct and would take on small dealers for something like a 20 scope order, say. They had a minimum markup that you could not sell under--10%. Those two factors meant a lot of scopes sat on the dealer shelf for a long time. To move against everyone else selling at the same 10%, they went across the counter at less than 10%, but we did not advertise it.
A significant number of 3-9s went back for a fix after puking in the field...and they puked pretty quickly. The 3-10s were better but...
That changed, of course, as they improved the scope but the problem kept popping up from old stock gathering dust sold as "new" from the dealer network. They all looked the same...except for the serial number.
So I'd check the manufacture date of the older unused or lightly used models with the serial number(call to CS) prior to going to Alaska...Swaros CS was great to us, BTW.
The recent Swaros are probably just as reliable as Swaro wants to make them.
This.
I can believe they had a problem early on. I cannot believe that Swarovski, of all people, would just continue to sell an essentially defective product.
As I've said before, I'm not married to the damn thing and will report any issues I have. It's just that it's been so mechanically reliable, on a pretty hard kicking "platform" no less, that I can't help but defend it when it's called mechanically UNreliable.
