I’ve experienced many scope failures in the field, so I’m not as flippant about wanting durable, mechanically-sound scopes on my rifles. With our current technology, scopes are the most fragile part of a rifle setup. When you think about your rifle possibly failing you under harsh conditions (weather, drops, falls, etc), what’s the first thing that comes to mind? That’s right, it’s your scope. If a manufacturer will make a scope that can minimize the risk of my rifle setup failing, I’m all for using it over more tender scope options on the market. Hence my general question: What’s the downside to having scopes that function correctly and can beat tent pegs and not lose zero? A couple of ounces? I’ll take the weight penalty, personally. That’s a worthwhile tradeoff IMO.

There are scopes that are built this way at every price point above $250, so money is no excuse to not build a scope made to work properly without failing.