| pcrage wrote:|
...and the better scopes have a lesser frequency in my and most peoples experience.
Really? Most people, huh? How do you know this without having failure rate % data from all the manufacturers? How do you define the vague term "better scope?" Does only higher priced scopes qualify, or do you know the "better" ones by brand and model? And how do you know what "most people" experience? If someone else has had the opposite experience as you, does that mean they are wrong?
I'm not trying to bust your chops, but you see where I'm going with this? Those types of anecdotal statements are exactly the way internet gossip spreads and flourishes. Unless you've done some type of extensive study on scope failures there's no way you can really know much more than what you and a few others in your circle of friends have personally found. And small sample sizes prove nothing. You may have just been unlucky. If I had bad experience with a product, I too would be unlikely or at least less likely to buy another, but in this case, we're not talking about an unproven product from a fly by night company. There is a long history here. I would have a hard time believing "most people" or even a large % of Leupold owners have had problems with their scopes, or the company wouldn't be able to maintain their reputation for very long.
I'm not defending Leupold, and in fact, I'm not really a Leupold fan. I've personally seen problems with Leupolds, most notably a few canted reticles. I know others have had this problem as well. But, I have no way of knowing how prevalent this is. I just don't think these types of generalities are helpful or honest. There's nothing wrong with saying you've personally had bad experiences with a product; that is your own experience talking. The reader can then weigh personal testimonies against what others have experienced and make an informed, calculated risk decision. But, when you claim to speak for "most people," and know for a fact which scopes are "better" by whatever criteria (I'm assuming in terms of mechanical durability), that's being a bit presumptuous, don't you think?