Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Light Optical Works (LOW) question

So I didn't want to derail the Zeiss V4 versus Tract optics thread anymore than it already is but do have a question about LOW that has always had me wondering.

According to their website they assemble a bunch of different scopes for a multitude of optics companies. And I pulled this off of their website:

Quality Assurance System
All the components we use in production have to satisfy stringent criteria at the incoming inspection. During assembly, the products must pass a mid-point inspection and at the end of production a final inspection. It is only when the requirements of this strict control system have been met that the products will finally be delivered to customers.

So I guess my question is why some of the scopes they assemble are considered bulletproof - SWFA SS scopes and from the other thread we can pretty much agree the Nightforce NXS line is pretty much unbreakable. And in the case of the SWFA SS and Nightforce both are can be dialed and return to zero no problemo.

So then we get to optics like Tract or one that has become popular recently the Vortex Razor HD LHT line. Both of those optics are assembled by LOW but based on threads are either garbage or OK but not in the same league as SWFA.

I guess I'd like to hear from someone why that is - if LOW builds them to their company standards and quality control shouldn't they all be pretty good scopes??

Sure appreciate anyone that can explain this and hopefully not go off the rails

I do not have the experience here that some do, so this is largely my assumption.....but based on several dealings with a variety of contracted manufacturing, I would suspect that LOW builds to the design and quality specifications outlined by the prime who contracted them. This is pretty common....meet the needs of the contract--no more, no less. Typically, any inspection points or quality assurance methods taken by the manufacturer beyond what is specified in the agreed contract would be cost absorbed by the manufacturer. Depending on the manufacturer, they may or may not be able to absorb this cost without hurting their profits. I seriously doubt LOW is performing any of these quality assurance steps for free.

NF has a solid reputation, no doubt. But when comparing SWFA and Tract, I think the key difference comes down to time in the field. Tract is a newcomer to the game whereas SWFA has been at this for many years and they have built a history of performance (and affordable performance at that). My experiences with Tract products have been solid and I think given enough time, they too will develop a track record for performance.

One additional note on Tract...having multiple product lines of tiered quality does not simplify things. Their Toric lines are great...and these are the products built by LOW (as was their Tekoa and Turion lines before being discontinued). Their Response and 22Fire lines are not made by LOW (Philippines). It was one of the non-LOW manufactured models that was the subject of the famed Formidilosus test that everyone points to and says "see, Tract sucks."

Nobody here knows the answer to that question. People will happily pull answers out of their ass though.

I believe LOW builds to the specs provided by the company they are building for.

....there would be a lot wrapped up in that. Quality of parts used, what parts are made of, tube thickness, coatings, etc. Building exactly the same scope, but with one having a "cheaper" sourced washer, spring, etc...will result in a different quality end product. A difference that may not show up until a point in the future when that lower quality part fails.

They might build them to specs provided but when the product is shipped back the amount of QC administered to this product might be way different from different companies.



There are a few posters that are in the optical industry that post here. It's the Christmas season cheer up .

I suppose that is probably the case - I guess when I look at this I look at it from my perspective - in that if it came from my factory regardless of name on the side of the scope I'd want it to be the best product I can produce since its coming out of my factory. But then I suppose thats why I don't run a manufacturing company

I'm sure they build to spec.

I just got in and mounted a 2-10x38 Maven. The box says made in Japan. The Maven info says components are made in Japan, assembled in the U.S., checked out in MT, the company HQ. They are sold direct, no middle man.

The glass on this one looks better than a VX-3i, the duplex is about like a VX-3i. Controls seem crisp and precise, although I've not put it thru it's paces, yet. ER is a bit short, but I'm not putting it on a big boomer. Warranty is reportedly lifetime. Not sure whose, as this is a small company. Hope they're can stick it out.

Anyone with experience with Maven's?

DF

I worked for a custom wire mill. On the order paper, the specs were a lot closer for wire for aircraft arresting cable than log bundling cable. I an sure that holds true in other manufacturing industries. When we went from Japanese testing requirements to American, we went from every one to one in ten. Just a mind set.

Binoculars I have, I looked thru the b,2 binos 9x45 and was thoroughly not impressed. I was on a deer hunt and two guys that had bought them were raving about them. I asked them how much they spent and they said 1k. I felt sorry for them , at the time I had my new 8x42 SLC's around my neck and thanked God I had the wisdom to buy them even if they were 400 bucks more.

As mentioned to some degree the issues expressed with Tract or Vortex are not necessarily caused by lessened quality oversight but quality or lack of quality components along with design differences.

I've not handled any Maven products other than the 2-10x38,

The SLC would be a hard act to follow.

DF

The company HQ of maven is Lander WY I believe.

Or they moved.

I would guess the difference comes down to the specific requirements of the company paying LOW to make scopes.

That 2-10 maven seems a little like the old weaver 2-10 classic.

I talked to LOW at shotshow in 2004 about starting my own scope line. I was a broke student at the time but had been long range shooting for about 8 years and was sick of all the 1" tube mil dot reticle with moa dials and 2nd focal plane crap that companies were pushing as long range gear at the time.

I layed out some ideas I had for a 3-12x42, a 4-16x44, 5-20x50 and a fixed 8 power 8x44. They told me about all the prototyping costs I'd be responsible for and their minimum order size for each individual model. I wanted to do each in mil/mil and moa/moa so that meant minimum orders of each and prototyping of each.

I didn't have millions at the time so they told me a lower cost route was to look at some models they'd already developed and then just make some cosmetic changes etc. I wanted 30 mil tubes, stiff target turrets with low profile windage and zero stops, and first focal plane. Because they didn't have anything at the time really close to what I wanted it was going to be very expensive to develop what I wanted from scratch.

I think many optic companies just choose to take a model they've already developed and make a few minor changes just because the cost of creating a new one from scratch is so high and multiple new ones is astronomically high.

Bb

I think meeting a price point is more of a factor to a manufacturer than making the product the best it can be.

I’ve been in and around manufacturing plants, both fab and assembly, my whole career. I’d say JCMCUBIC & War Eagle are spot on. The specs/requirements most likely come form the customer. Those could be a high level, completed scope assembly, requirement only (likely for lower volume or smaller brands). Or, it could be at the level of a unique drawing, with a set of dimensional, material, finish, coating specs for every single part used in the assembly, and standardized work instructions for every assembly step, each with its own QC heck. The manufacturer is responsible to provide proof that all requirements have been met, so they will (at least should) put the necessary quality controls in place to ensure this.Japanese companies typically do this as well as, if not better than, manufacturers anywhere in the world.

It takes product engineers who know what to specify and how to specify it, manufacturing processes that are capable of doing what is specified, and quality controls that ensure producers (pieces and assemblies) ALWAYS meet the specs. Based on what I read about LOW, I think they have capable manufacturing processes and can apply the appropriate quality controls. I suspect the difference in performance between various brands produced at LOW is having sufficient product engineering knowledge to specify everything that matters. Perhaps LOW has this resource as well, but you can bet that it isn’t cheap. So it either takes lump sum investment on the front end, or high volume of product over an extended period of time to fund it.

Absolutely.

It’s capitalism.

You make the best product you can to meet a price point. Price point is the target. Quality follows. The bigger buzz for the buck, the better one’s chance of success. And that’s the trick. It’s what made Bill Ruger a legend.

DF

Out of curiosity, what was a “minimum run”, back then?? 100 scopes?? 500? 1000???

Thanks for your reply - that makes total sense to me now.
Much obliged!

Maybe my one of my ramblings finally made sense to someone. LOL

You can thank me be selling me a nice 7-08 . I’ve been looking for the right one for a few months with no luck. Earlier this week, I decided I was gonna bail on the search and buy a T3X Superlite that Sportsman’s showed to have in stock (online, no SW in my state), and I even struck out on that deal.

I actually have a SL 7MM-08 that is maybe on the don't need list. If I decide to sell that one I'll PM you and if it looks interesting we can work something out