what do you think happens to the returned scope?

[cruft]

a guy was writing he had dropped his march scope on the turret. it was returned to japan for repairs and he was given a new scope. my opinion---ready?----sit down; this scope was refurbished and sold to the next customer. these scopes are frightfully costly to make and it's waaaaay cheaper to replace any faulty part and take care of the cometics and recycle. the customer would not know the difference and if he would give a refund. what's the downside? afterall recycling is good, right? now this opinion is not limited to march but to ANY scope, or just about anything (not electronics). second take forget the electronics. ???

 

[NateHaler]

oh goody, let's all engage in conjecture, and start some rumors. ???

Nothing wrong with being cynical, friend, but what is the point to this sort of "inquiry"?

 

[dlong]

There is so much margin on the manufacturing end they probably just reuse the tube or refurbish and sell as refurbished like Nikon does. If a March scope costs $3000.00 retail, it probably costs 3 to 4 hundred to make. Multiplier is at least 7 or 8 times...especially if the parts are made in china which I believe March does. The Chinese can copy any produce and spec for next to nothing.

 

[Gman]

I was under the impression that the parts are made in Japan. There is quite a difference in quality between China and Japan.

 

[cruft]

the most costly parts in scopes are the lenses and they can & probably are reused. this may be for only the latest lenses and coatings but there is little new in optics for scopes in many years. in eyeglasses, especially progressive bifocals get the latest. nate,as for starting inquires are they not questions? is this not an open forum? statements that have no basis of truth in experience quickly disappear. as for cynical, anyone past 11 should have that knocked into them.

 

[cliffe]

although this is a open forum, most come here to discuss different products and what they think is a good or bad. maybe you can join the rest of us and share some useful info. anyhow i hope you can. cliffe

 

[McKinneyMike]

I was also under the impression that everything was of Japanese origin.

 

[Kenny474]

There is nothing Chinese in a March, it explains where they are made right on the web site. The lenses are made at the top lens factory in Japan. The lead engineer is Japanese. No Chinese about it.

 

[GerryM]

The march scopes only use top optical glass from japan. Its hand selected and so are all other parts. They are hand assembled and carefully checked every inch of the way.
Thats what makes them so pricey. Nice scopes if you can afford it .
The clearity is second to none. The only thing that comes close is the old lyman s or Unertl

 

[Stonewall]

cruft

dlong

Considering the way that March scopes are made with the lens and mounting glued together I believe that the tube is destroyed in order to get back inside.

I don't really think DEON Optical Design Corp has any problems about returned scopes ............. ;D



I have a March 40 X -that's where my scope money went.



Have you even seen a March scope ?


Just what do you use for optics on your rifles ????

Glenn

 

[LHSmith]

There is so much margin on the manufacturing end they probably just reuse the tube or refurbish and sell as refurbished like Nikon does. If a March scope costs $3000.00 retail, it probably costs 3 to 4 hundred to make. Multiplier is at least 7 or 8 times...especially if the parts are made in china which I believe March does. The Chinese can copy any produce and spec for next to nothing.

Wharton Business School Graduate?.......In the 70's to mid 80's I worked for a company that produced specialized cryogenic laboratory equipment, we were lucky to get 35% Gross Profit Margin.On items were we had no competition we may have got mid 40% . To claim March is reaping a 700 to 800 % GPM is ludicrous.
I suppose those Chinese counterfits of Leupold Mk4's are so good that YOU can't tell the fake from the real thing.
I suspect your fantasy about huge profit margins stems from trying to equate drug company m/u to durable goods profit margins........or you are ignoring OVERHEAD costs, i.e design, engineering , testing, tooling, machinery, real estate or rent, building maint, actual labor costs plus real labor costs which factors in costs of benefits, legal fees for patents and exposure to liabilities, marketing, cost of honoring warranties, taxes,...etc.......all of which someone has to pay for.
And, yes the lenses and some other components are epoxied in place, but if March deems it cost effective to salvage any components, why should I care? It's their reputation that's at stake....and in the market niche they are in ....reputation is GOLDEN.