I think the following is what was missed by most:
I work for a company that is not involved in this manufacturing, but in our market segment, we regularly have to make decisions as to whether or not we want to make a product at a profit, or break-even just to fill a niche, keeping our 'foot in the door' of the respective customer or market segment. When we get to that point, we always as ourselves if the product we are selling at reduced cost/value with ultimately hurt us if the product is perceived as poor.
I think that Vortex should have asked themselves this
Also, although the Rifleman series and the Timberline series are not well though of here (and possibly deservedly so), This morning at dawn I got a Father-in-Law's Rifleman 3-9x power and compared, and this Crossfire is no-where NEAR the quality of that scope, FYI.......
I think that's an excellent point, and I agree with it. I don't believe most missed your intent there, though. Folks were commenting on the fact you were condemning an entire brand because they offer a low end scope as well as stuff priced more toward the high end, when in fact many optics companies do the same. Whether or not the Crossfire is worse than other companies low end scopes is a subjective judgment where opinions will differ. I've seen some pretty crappy low end stuff from Bushnell, Nikon, Burris, and a few others that I personally thought couldn't get much worse. Having really high magnification only makes things worse. If the 3-9X Rifleman topped out at 24X, it would probably look just as bad as the Crossfire. Low price + high magnification = poor optics... regardless of brand.
