One has to ask, what in sams hadees did you do to shear off the entire erector?? Not everything can be built bombproof and absolute abuse proof.
I know who you're addressing. However, I found "SDHNTR" comments to be very beneficial to me. In fact, I overlooked the weight where he brought that to my attention (12.5 ou.); too light and most likely flimsy. It is never the money but only trying to find the hidden aspects many manufacturers hide, then increasing their profit with "cheap" parts. None tell any "how many fully coated optics there are". Some could be two or three and some could be more. The internals are rarely spoken of, again only to hide those components that are somewhat weak or prone to malfunction. In this respect, many optic manufacturers offer a 'lifetime warranty' to offset any snooping. This is merely a ploy to entice the buyer. Following the aforementioned is how well the service will be upon returning any scope and what stipulations shall be attached. I've never had any issues with Leupold or Bushnell and they're not $700.00 or more. It seems that the higher end scopes are being sold by name recognition or that some believe that spending a larger amount will bring them a 'quality' scope.
This is business management whereas they're in business to reap the most profit they can by using inferior parts or outsourced parts at lower prices. This really is no surprise to any versed in business. Most manufacturers move to Germany to obtain their optics for they are renowned for their quality and technology. There may be a few in house providers of optics such as Swarvoski, yet they cheat one in using 'plastic internal' parts. I personally believe that even the higher end scope makers are lessening their standards of quality in place of trying to enhance their profit margin: common sense. In the interim, we continue to play the game.
