Worst Optics Warranty Ever

[riverwolf1]

Don't send a 36x back to Leupold. They will want to replace it with a 45 LCS. Heard of a couple guys that ran into this.

liljoe, I send 3 of them back to leupold at the end of each season for clean, inspect and test and I usually get them back in 3 weeks with a test sheet and notes on anything they fixed. The other 2 of them have Tucker conversions, and leupold won’t work on them.

 

[fyrewall]

I have sympathy for Mr. Riverwolf concerning his situation.

I have incurred warranty problems both with personal items and business items and have attempted restitution starting with the company, then external resolution. Seeking remediation using any available consumer protection process is not fraudulent, fake, incorrect, false, stupid, nasty, but logical as these various agencies exist to protect the consumer from predation from bad business processes. Certain guidelines must be observed to ensure the remediation process is conducted within boundaries to avoid "loop holes" and a warranty best does this. Careful examination of any existing warranty might show that Bushnell acted correctly or incorrectly in substituting an item of equal value and such an examination would not be a valid admonition to "Stop looking for loop holes for this company". Should a consumer protection agency believe Mr. Riverwolf's complaint is valid they would push Bushnell to produce an explanation as to why an exchange was effected vs. a cash refund or repair. Small claim courts are intended to speedily resolve disputes such as this but they operate within narrow boundaries - no lawyers, only cash awards. I save any and all documentation and have had a 100% success rate in pursuing small claim court actions. I have been favorably impressed by the speed and diligence of various small claim court judges. The judge would read the warranty then ask both parties to clarify their respective positions then render a decision.

Mr. Riverwolf feels that Bushnell has treated him unfairly and is not about to quit. Mr. Riverwolf might be doing what I suggested - seeking a resolution using some outside source. I don't have a clue of what the HMIFC is or who Tom Metz is but if they can pressure Bushnell to respond like Weaver would (fix or $816 cash). Spending $816 for a scope seems to indicate some intended purpose which in this case is bench rest shooting and my position on an exchange for an equal value scope has moderated somewhat. Mr. Riverwolf's subsequent explanation helped me understand the situation better.

All this has been informative. Should one of my 6-20X40 Grandslam scopes quit working would Bushnell attempt to satisfy me with some inflated value scope of inferior quality but approximate equal value? I am now waiting for Bushnell to respond to my request to provide a spare set of 2 adjustment caps for my Weaver Grandslam scopes. One short call to Leupold & the caps would be in my mail box within a week.

It is not over until it is over.

 

[davidjoe]

Yea a 5x27x60 must be a better scope- you should thank them

Indeed, because this lifetime replacement consumer expectation is fiscally unsustainable for a company. A scope is easily the most fragile element of a gun but somehow these several remaining makers are so bent over a barrel as to have to guarantee them forever. Even for the fourth buyer.

If they gave a full refund, then retailers and buyers could wink at each other and both make out like bandits. On top of negating the original sale, the no questions asked free scope still loses the customer. There isn’t nearly the money being made in our hobby the public thinks. Does the new in box scope next get returned to a big box retailer for store credit, one which doesn’t require a receipt? That’s not a suggestion just an observation of another way consumers have unbalanced leverage.

 

[dolek]

Indeed, because this lifetime replacement consumer expectation is fiscally unsustainable for a company. A scope is easily the most fragile element of a gun but somehow these several remaining makers are so bent over a barrel as to have to guarantee them forever. Even for the fourth buyer.

What about a scope that is junk from day one ? Say you send it in,and they send it back ...they say it passes their standards...but their standards allow junk to be sold. Hence ripping off the consumer in the first place. I call that fraud !

If they gave a full refund, then retailers and buyers could wink at each other and both make out like bandits. On top of negating the original sale, the no questions asked free scope still loses the customer. There isn’t nearly the money being made in our hobby the public thinks. Does the new in box scope next get returned to a big box retailer for store credit, one which doesn’t require a receipt? That’s not a suggestion just an observation of another way consumers have unbalanced leverage.

 

[davidjoe]

If it’s day 1 junk, then a traditional 1 to 3 year type warranty, excluding abuse, would cover it. These companies are trading their future viability for present sales. Will many of us wall-hang or toss a trashed 30 year old Nightforce, or will we send it in expecting a box in UPS that turns back the clock, on their dime.

 

[fyrewall]

Indeed, because this lifetime replacement consumer expectation is fiscally unsustainable for a company. A scope is easily the most fragile element of a gun but somehow these several remaining makers are so bent over a barrel as to have to guarantee them forever. Even for the fourth buyer.

If they gave a full refund, then retailers and buyers could wink at each other and both make out like bandits. On top of negating the original sale, the no questions asked free scope still loses the customer. There isn’t nearly the money being made in our hobby the public thinks. Does the new in box scope next get returned to a big box retailer for store credit, one which doesn’t require a receipt? That’s not a suggestion just an observation of another way consumers have unbalanced leverage.

My views are that many scopes are made in the Philippines or China to avoid high labor costs. The rifle scope business is competitive and buyers/consumers can enjoy the results of the competition. A legit scope maker would label the returned product as "refurbished" to be resold at a negotiated price with a retailer and both manufacturer and retailer would realize some benefit - everybody loves a good deal. Just business.

No sensible retailer would provide a cash refund or store credit for an item not having a receipt because the item might have been ripped off from the same retailer or another. This would encourage theft but some retailers give store credit for returned items having no receipts. Hopefully, their inventory and loss control system would discover ripped off items and then stop that process. Giving store credit for some no receipt multi hundred $ scope would be the beginning of the end for that retailer. At this point the person possessing the scope should be directed to the manufacturer for what ever remedies that could be in effect - repair, or replacement.

Should the defect be caused by gross manufacturing negligence (like internal oil spots) discovered and reported after a short time - a cash refund would be entirely reasonable provided a repair or like replacement could not be made. Bushnell had the option to decline servicing Weaver scopes. Possibly, the Weaver associated scope maker in Japan could service Weaver scopes, "Light" optical or something like that. Bushnell's decision to make their existing repair/replacement policy was based on economics.

I presently own 5 Weaver scopes, some of which are 19 years old. Total retail cost about $2,000. All of them have provided reliable long term service and I see no need for replacement. Two scopes have been returned to Weaver for service and Weaver checked out everything, cleaned up inside and outside, replaced the worn off marking on rubber parts, and reported their work. I would not expect a cash refund or direct replacement for an out off production item owed for a long period. Hopefully, the manufacturer would have a stash of parts to make a repair or have a product that would closely duplicate the intended use and value of the defective product. Spending over $800 for a scope implies serious and dedicated use and any company acquiring service responsibilities should have direct purpose replacements - like a defective BR scope is replaced with another BR scope of equal value and ability. Bushnell feels that the subject exchange satisfies any obligation. Does Bushnell make an equivalent purpose and value bench rest scope? A cash voucher (like making deals with high volume retailers) enabling purchasing another scope from a retailer would be fair provided the defect was reported in a reasonable time and Bushnell was unable to fix the problem or provide a direct replacement. Good business practices would seize on any opportunity to sell more products and develop nice relations with retailers and customers.

I am waiting to see how Bushnell reacts to my simple request for spare adjustment caps; I offered $. I will then ask Bushnell for clarification of their policies regarding servicing Weaver scopes and then ask, should a replacement be required, what specifically would Bushnell replace my Weaver scope with.

I return scopes to Leupold every year for modification, inspection and repair and they cheerfully perform the work. Three years ago I returned a 12X40 M8 scope made in the mid 80's for repair. Leupold fixed it within 3 weeks and also replaced the objective lens with a newer lens having better coatings for no charge. I think paying about $100 more for a Leupold scope is worth it. Leupold shows no signs of economic stress and is steadily enlarging their product line each year.

 

[davidjoe]

There’s nothing wrong at all with fully utilizing the services that Leupold extends to you. I’m assuming they don’t charge you since you say that they cheerfully perform the work. But as you can imagine, if everyone who owns Leupold scopes (even a chunk of them) sent scopes in yearly for complimentary testing, tuning, inspection (new parts like your better-coated objective lens) and returning, and if Leupold did do it, that actually would be the end of Leopold. Put another way, Leupold likely is only this customer friendly and gracious in your experience with them because more people forgo this type of personal attention service.

We have incredible consumer goods return leniency here. Research “return” warehouses. Guys buy things just to try them for free, planning to return them. I disagree that refurbishing and low cost manufacturing changes the dynamics. Worst abuse - vast numbers of huge screen TV’s are bought and then sloppily returned and damaged right after the Super Bowl. They end up one rung above trash and sold in lots for pennies on the dollar. When was the last time you saw a return department employee verify that the box even contained the right product, or all of it.

I love a good deal too, as you say, don’t get me wrong. But some deals are crushing. Whether the big business is smart enough to realize it or not. You acknowledge potential abuse in receipt-less returns, but how about the fact that I can get a new scope if I damage mine, but if I don’t break it and am just tired of it, I’m stuck with it. Hmmm.

 

[dolek]

Nevermind

There’s nothing wrong at all with fully utilizing the services that Leupold extends to you. I’m assuming they don’t charge you since you say that they cheerfully perform the work. But as you can imagine, if everyone who owns Leupold scopes (even a chunk of them) sent scopes in yearly for complimentary testing, tuning, inspection (new parts like your better-coated objective lens) and returning, and if Leupold did do it, that actually would be the end of Leopold. Put another way, Leupold likely is only this customer friendly and gracious in your experience with them because more people forgo this type of personal attention service.

We have incredible consumer goods return leniency here. Research “return” warehouses. Guys buy things just to try them for free, planning to return them. I disagree that refurbishing and low cost manufacturing changes the dynamics. Worst abuse - vast numbers of huge screen TV’s are bought and then sloppily returned and damaged right after the Super Bowl. They end up one rung above trash and sold in lots for pennies on the dollar. When was the last time you saw a return department employee verify that the box even contained the right product, or all of it.

I love a good deal too, as you say, don’t get me wrong. But some deals are crushing. Whether the big business is smart enough to realize it or not. You acknowledge potential abuse in receipt-less returns, but how about the fact that I can get a new scope if I damage mine, but if I don’t break it and am just tired of it, I’m stuck with it. Hmmm.

Thats some funny crap right there..."Big Business not smart enough" I'm pretty sure Leupold has it all figured out . But if you can guide them in any way I am sure they would appreciate the help.

 

[Raythemanroe]

Standing behind your products is bad? Try selling a multi thousand dollar scope when you tell the end user to pound salt on a defective product and see how fast common core math can't even keep up with lost sales .


Ray

 

[davidjoe]

Ok let’s have forever warranties on cars, appliances and houses then. Yep.

 

[davidjoe]

This European scope maker either doesn't think they are as good, or knows forever is a very long time. Have PMII’s and they give up nothing to Leupolds, which are very good. I wouldn’t expect them to be on the hook forever. Only diamonds are forever.

———————-

With the present Schmidt & Bender scope you are purchasing a high-quality product for which we give you a worldwide warranty under the following conditions:

Within 30 years from the date of the purchase we undertake to entertain a permanent stock of the required spare parts and make sure that our service engineers have all the necessary skills and capabilities to perform the required repair work.

Within 2 years from the date of the purchase we grant a warranty with respect to the applicable statutory warranty claims of the buyer.

As far as the scopes of the Zenith, Klassik and Hungaria series are concerned, the warranty with respect to the statutory warranty claims shall be valid within 10 years from the date of the purchase, with the restriction that any jobs and repairs performed as a result of wear and tear will not be covered by this warranty from the beginning of the 3rd year from the date of the purchase.

The warranty will not be valid for damages caused by improper use.

The warranty shall become void after any intervention and repair performed by any repair service we did not authorize to perform the repair.

 

[Coyotefurharvester]

Worse is when you contact the customer service,repair representative and give them serial # and model. Ask them if can be repaired off warranty and told yes and given a service number. Then they email in a few days after receiving and say they don't repair and offer an "exchange" with a fee(about same price I see the offered exchange item for). I questioned them about the implied repair statement, tell them to return item. They do along with an earlier item(still under warranty), that "passed their function test" of course, but doesn't work when I test it. _teiner, _urris. Done forever.

 

[dmoran]

300% to 600% mark up on scopes is a common amount by the mfg's, and why warranties will never break a scope company. Warranty expectations are built into the price, and why the markup percentage are in part what they are. Also, most all of the "life time warranty" scopes fine print will read something on lines of: for as long as the model is being made/sold or as long as they have parts available for the said model.

 

[fyrewall]

There’s nothing wrong at all with fully utilizing the services that Leupold extends to you. I’m assuming they don’t charge you since you say that they cheerfully perform the work. But as you can imagine, if everyone who owns Leupold scopes (even a chunk of them) sent scopes in yearly for complimentary testing, tuning, inspection (new parts like your better-coated objective lens) and returning, and if Leupold did do it, that actually would be the end of Leopold. Put another way, Leupold likely is only this customer friendly and gracious in your experience with them because more people forgo this type of personal attention service.

We have incredible consumer goods return leniency here. Research “return” warehouses. Guys buy things just to try them for free, planning to return them. I disagree that refurbishing and low cost manufacturing changes the dynamics. Worst abuse - vast numbers of huge screen TV’s are bought and then sloppily returned and damaged right after the Super Bowl. They end up one rung above trash and sold in lots for pennies on the dollar. When was the last time you saw a return department employee verify that the box even contained the right product, or all of it.

I love a good deal too, as you say, don’t get me wrong. But some deals are crushing. Whether the big business is smart enough to realize it or not. You acknowledge potential abuse in receipt-less returns, but how about the fact that I can get a new scope if I damage mine, but if I don’t break it and am just tired of it, I’m stuck with it. Hmmm.

Leupold "cheerfully perform(s)" the work because I know what I want and I am willing to pay a fair price for non-warranty work and carefully avoid un-necessary conflicts. I can not imagine Leupold failing because of a customer friendly business attitude. Upon receiving a new Leupold scope I give it lots of range time and occasionally they fail, this requires a warranty return to repair, usually the failure is identified as "failure to hold zero". Sometimes I send scopes back to Leupold for non-warranty work like new adjustments and Leupold charges me $125 which I cheerfully pay because of their friendly courteous service and prompt turn around.

Some Leupold history:

My 35 year old Leupold 12X M8 was sent back to Leupold for installation of target dials (modification) and they charged me $125 for the target dials and the new objective lens was a freebee. After some use on my .375-.338 for load development the scope "failed to hold zero". It was returned again and Leupold fixed it free under their warranty. Now that scope is used on a .308. Leupold had the parts to fix a 30 year plus old scope and honored their warranty.

After making good deals on 2 used Leupold scopes (a 6.5-20X40 VXIII, & a 4.5-14X40 VXIII) I sent each back for installation of target dials (more modification) and inspection paying Leupold $125 each. I cheerfully paid the $125 each because Leupold would perform the work complying to my specs and fast turn around.

A used purchase 12 year old 4.5-14X40 VXIII was returned for warranty repair when it quit "failure to hold zero". It was used on a .22-.250, .243, & 300 Win.

A new 6-18X40 VX2 quit working the second trip to the range; it was returned and Leupold fixed it under warranty. It was used on a .20 P & 6mm AI.

I have an account with Leupold.

Refurbished scopes:

Going through the on-line Midway and Natchez sites I often see - "refurbished" or "blemished" scopes. Were these scopes obtained from the manufacturer or were they returned to the retailer as new condition (no ring marks, opened boxes)? The retailer's policy to accept unused merchandise for cash refund or store credit is independent of the manufacturer. Would these scopes be returned to the manufacturer to be tested? Were the boxes opened? These scopes would be sold at a discount. The availability of a manufacturers warranty would make them marketable. Never bought one, yet, but should I decide to it would likely be a Leupold because of the warranty. I never would buy an on-line item without being able to inspect it and return it, unused, should it have some defect or discrepancy in specs.

Replacement of damaged scopes:

Should I squash my Vortex scope by driving over it and return it, Vortex might replace it with the same model scope incurring the same level of dislike. If I became tired of my Vortex scope I would have the option of trading it or adjusting to its deficiencies. Only a huge profit markup would enable a manufacturer to give deals like this. I would guess that lost or stolen items are not included in any warranty.

Return of goods:

Walmart guarantees satisfaction and accepts returns with receipts, scopes & TV's. I buy open box items only after I probe the insides to assure the contents are as marked and all the ancillary items are included and a warranty exists.

 

[davidjoe]

300% to 600% mark up on scopes is a common amount by the mfg's, and why warranties will never break a scope company. Warranty expectations are built into the price, and why the markup percentage are in part what they are. Also, most all of the "life time warranty" scopes fine print will read something on lines of: for as long as the model is being made/sold or as long as they have parts available for the said model.

I don’t know that scope manufacturers are any more “profitable” overall than other related companies. I have two amazing Premiers, but must hope they don’t break, as that manufacturer is gone.

But even supposing these companies try to approach those figures, their funding a “war chest” with the markup for an ever-increasing liability, instead of being tempted to distribute the money now is an iffy assumption.

Assuming they cover product publicly satisfactorily, my concern had been whether they doom their viability years from now matching other’s warranties in order to sell product today, on the premise there won’t be a company in the future if they don’t, to worry about.

Who would have thought in the 70’s that nearly every Legacy American gunmaker would go bankrupt within a couple of decades. Or that American optics-related giants like Kodak and Polaroid (and unlike Nikon and Canon) had such a short shelf life. Or that IBM’s amazing and bulletproof typewriter spanning generations would get stranded. Or that Ford would (will very) soon stop selling sedans in America, while my 31 year long driving life Camry and Accord led sales. Today is tomorrow’s 70’s and 80’s.

 

[davidjoe]

Nevermind

Thats some funny crap right there..."Big Business not smart enough" I'm pretty sure Leupold has it all figured out . But if you can guide them in any way I am sure they would appreciate the help.

I’ve never regretted restraint.

 

[snert]

Here's a few more of there subsidiaries to add to your list of not to buy products:

• Alliant Powder
• CCI
• Federal
• RCBS
• Speer
• Hoppies 9
• Champion
• Butler Creek
• Simmons
• Tasco
• Millett
• Bushnell
• Weaver
• Primo's
• Outer's
• Gunslick
• Blazer
• Blackhawk
• Eagle

Several more, but will stop there.... (tired of typing... lol)

Well I am relieved. Besides some primers from CCI and closeout TNTs, I have not purchased a single new product from any of those brands in 8 years. Most of that crap sucks

 

[284winner]

Well I am relieved. Besides some primers from CCI and closeout TNTs, I have not purchased a single new product from any of those brands in 8 years. Most of that crap sucks

A Reloader without Alliant is like a smoker without a way to light his ciggy...IMO. I use it religiously in my rifles.

 

[fyrewall]

I have just kicked off an attempt to get a pair of adjustment caps for one of my Weaver Grand Slam scopes. I contacted Dan @ Bushnell via email on 7 July about the adjustment caps but have not received a response. Using the Bushnell repair on-line site I obtained a repair Lab # and a request to attach the form to the "product" . I see no need to send the scope back for adjustment caps and include $10 for some item that I probably/might not receive.

Today, 12 July, I sent Dan a 2nd email. I advised Dan that I would pay a reasonable price for the adjustment caps and reiterated my thoughts about returning a product and paying $10 for an item that might not be available. I also asked Dan if Bushnell made any scopes equivalent to the Weaver T series. I expressed my thinking, should service be unavailable for the 10's of 1,000's of new Weaver scopes in various retail markets those Weaver scopes would have greatly reduced value or be essentially be of no value.

Following that I contacted Light Optical in Japan using the contact form on their on-line site and expressed my needs.

I intend to slowly but steadily advance on the situation. Stuff like this makes me unhappy. I use Alliant powder and CCI primers but the rest of the Vista stuff I can happily avoid.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Here's a few more of there subsidiaries to add to your list of not to buy products:

• Alliant Powder
• CCI
• Federal
• RCBS
• Speer
• Hoppies 9
• Champion
• Butler Creek
• Simmons
• Tasco
• Millett
• Bushnell
• Weaver
• Primo's
• Outer's
• Gunslick
• Blazer
• Blackhawk
• Eagle

Several more, but will stop there.... (tired of typing... lol)

Add Sig Sauer optics to that list. Horrible CS that wont back their products even when they dont work as claimed straight out of the box.

Not going to stop buying Alliant powder or Federal primers tho. Have always worked extremely well for me.

Never had any issues with RCBS either. Always worked very well for me.

I agree with the rest of the list