Quote:
Is there any scientific data that indicates that an expensive scopes have had fewer failures in the field than cheaper scopes?
I have none to offer. Such research doesn't exist. Even asking such a question is, itself, questionable.
But I can offer two(-ish) quick examples, from a sea of Leupold:
1. The only Leupold to ever fail in my family was run over by a truck.
Leupold replaced the scope, for free.
2. My father sent six scopes to Leupold last year (mostly because he was bored).
The newest one was 23 years old.
Five were cleaned, "tuned", "tweaked", and upgraded to the latest o-rings, coatings (where lenses were available), and gas mixtures, free of charge.
The sixth was replaced, free of charge, due to a part no longer available, with the latest-and-greatest equivalent model (~$1,300).
Try any of that with your Tasco, Simmons, Burris, or Bushnell budget scope...
Heck... try that with a Nikon, Swarovski, or Zeiss. Basically the same problems.
I know I have. The responses were, essentially: "Here's some fresh dog poop. Would you like to taste it?"
(The only exception being a [rather expensive] Bushnell where they wouldn't replace or repair it, but let me fight until I got a partial refund... )
I used to use cheap scopes. I learned my lessons the hard way.
Every Bushnell I have ever owned has failed.
Every Simmons I have ever owned has failed.
Every Burris I have ever owned has failed (except for a Red-dot ... but that's not a scope).
And the list goes on...
Surprisingly, most Tascos that I have owned have held up -- even if overall quality, clarity, and light transmission is/was absolute garbage. Even so... I don't trust them in applications that really matter.
Regardless of quality, clarity, light transmission, and warranty... If you're shooting deer straight-down, from 20 feet, you have a very different set of (lower) demands than I do when I'm out beating feet up and down the Rockies.