Originally Posted by bruce_ventura
Something tells me you're applying a very high standard to a consumer product. It would not surprise or bother me to learn that under extremely harsh use, a Swaro broke before a NF did.
NF scopes may survive longer simply because they're heavier. Did your buddies add another pound of weight to their rifles when they tested the Swaros?
I wouldn't say it was harsh use at all. Demanding, I will give you that.
No additional weight was added, they were used as designed and rightfully so in my mind. If someone makes a scope, calls it premium and charges a price commensurate to that claim then it should perform, no excuses. It may be of interest to note that the scopes that were outperforming Swaro's were silly brands like Bushnell Elite, Weaver, and some of the higher end Nikons. It wasn't like we were using the very top end stuff.
I will say this in an attempt to be fair, the demand for excellence in optics has risen drastically over the last decade. 10 years ago it was hard to find good shooters that really understood the differences between MOA, IPHY, and MIL. Not saying there weren't any just saying that compared to today the expectation and knowledge base is much higher. I am sure that in some ways manufacturers were simply providing products that met the general demand. I just get a bit testy when products advertised as premium under-perform compared to mid range scopes. And to be more fair Swaro wasn't the only one by a long ways. Also, I haven't used the newer Swaro models like the Z5 and 6 so hopefully things have improved from my experience.