Erector Assembies

Joined
Dec 20, 2019
Messages
1,102
Nightforce and SWFA have earned a reputation for being tough and tracking precisely and reliably. Leupold has a reputation for being unreliable in that regard.

Have any of you torn into the erector assemblies to see what the differences are? If those two companies are putting out a product that has developed a great reputation and a cult like following, if I am Leupold, I'd figure out what they are doing and do it better. I don't think we are talking about a difficult engineering feat. I don't think we are talking about rare and precious materials that add substantially to the cost. I don't think we are looking at too much of a weight penalty.

If any of you know the actual differences, what are they? Pics would be useful or sources of your info would be useful.
 

Apollo117

WKR
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
473
This is a great topic and great questions. I've often wondered this myself.

I think Form wrote a post describing the engineering that went into SWFA scopes when they were trying to land a government contract. I'll see if I can find it.
 

Ryan Avery

Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
8,639
Here is a Swarovski X5. It's by far my favorite LR hunting scope.

SWFA_X5_Rifle_Scope_cross_section_text-1024x731.jpgSWFA_X5_Rifle_Scope_cross_section-2_with_text-1024x832.jpg
 

Chris B

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Dec 20, 2019
Messages
226
I asked this same question over on 24 hour campfire and never got a response.
 

wapitibob

WKR
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
5,366
Location
Bend Oregon
We used to build parts for a certain made in the NW scope and during that time hired a cpl former leupold employees; both commented they had never seen tolerances as tight as the made in NW brand.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2017
Messages
1,045
Location
Boston Ma
Good topic, I would have to imagine it’s a cost issue. I bet they weighed the cost of making them cheaper and pumping them to box stores knowing a certain percentage come back for warranty VS making a better scope that costs more to make and may not hit objective price points.
 

Chris B

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Dec 20, 2019
Messages
226
Good topic, I would have to imagine it’s a cost issue. I bet they weighed the cost of making them cheaper and pumping them to box stores knowing a certain percentage come back for warranty VS making a better scope that costs more to make and may not hit objective price points.

You probably hit the nail on the head . Sad that profit above quality seems to be the norm .
 
OP
Fartrell Cluggins
Joined
Dec 20, 2019
Messages
1,102
You probably hit the nail on the head . Sad that profit above quality seems to be the norm .
It seems to me that it would be more profitable, especially on the higher end of the spectrum, to make a scope robust enough to compete with the best. Otherwise consumers buy the competition's scope.
 

Chris B

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Dec 20, 2019
Messages
226
It seems to me that it would be more profitable, especially on the higher end of the spectrum, to make a scope robust enough to compete with the best. Otherwise consumers buy the competition's scope.


You would think that . It seems more people want cheaper prices more than quality nowadays.
 
Top