Rifle Scopes Who's really making what for who!?

[the once-ler]

After doing a close bit of eyeballing on the optics market "looking for my next scope" I have found some interesting things and wanted to see if others could fill in some more info on this.
So let's say a company like Bushnell, SWFA, March, Nightforce (all L.O.W) want to bring a new optical device to market they will contract out the design and production to one of only a small few large corporations that exist that have the capability to actually take the raw materials and turn them into a finished product. There are only a few worldwide sources for raw high quality OG such as Ohara, Schott Glaswerk,Hoya, CDGM etc. They supply the OG to companies such as Light Optical Works, Optronica etc. Some companies will only contract the design and source only the lenses like Leupold. I would guess there are a few that do their own in house glass grinding such as Swaro, IOR, Zeiss/Hensoldt etc.
I almost think now you need to look at exactly where your purchase is coming from NOT the guys who put their name on it? Right?
I may be wrong in some of this but it's basically the gist of what I am getting at here, maybe some could elaborate or correct me on this a little further.

 

[damoncali]

I don't care if gnomes pull parts out of their rears and assemble it. If it works, it works. Something to be said for financial stability and support, too.

 

[pawprint2]

When a small group controls the majority of the final product in a given market, and do so under an umbrella of names competition is limited. If this were many other industries, the word monopoly would be bandied about. You'd hear people talking about price gouging/price fixing etc.. Now if one adds the actual limited numbers (although presented as a vibrant market via the numerous commercial names) to the acceptable practice of "price fixing" on the retail end (a retailer must sell this given product at no lower than XXX price or they will no longer be sold product wholesale) the only people suffering are the end consumers. You can call it any by any number of names but price fixing is price fixing, something communists would love! This practice is anything but pro free market, pro freedom. I'm sure I'll be attacked by a few fan boys (or their "special" fan boys) but the facts are the facts. There is no doubt that free markets, both in production and in retail deliver a better product at a lower price, be it rifle scopes or computers.

 

[the once-ler]

That's the beauty of what these companies are doing! They hold the name and these large contractors make the product for them to market. I could go to them and say "I want to bring a new optic to market" call it the diggitybombshizt-riflescope, tell them the specs and let them make it for me to sell to all.lol

 

[pawprint2]

What's even funnier, are the consumers, some actually think if they pay more for X, because it has a given brand name on the side, it is better than Y with a different brand name on the side. Reason, the guys building this scope are really well known for the their expertise for 100s of years etc., when in fact they are both built by Z the only difference is the name on the side. I know a guy that only buys "German optics", he about had a heart attack when he found out where some of his zeiss scopes were actually manufactured, and that meopta was the builder!! If it cost more it must be better is a fantasy.

 

[the once-ler]

Years ago names like Burris, Bushnell, Tasco got a rep for putting out junk, probably true cause they didn't have the higher end stuff back then. The competition wasn't what it is now either. Many companies had to really step up their game just to keep up. I told my old man the other day I was buying a Bushnell and his jaw dropped, YOU a Bushnell!? I proceeded to tell him what the deal was and he kinda smirked, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Name Enough]

A modern trend is for companies to be production companies, Marketing companies or distribution companies. It is not uncommon for a company to produce the same product with different packaging for several different marketing companies. Some companies involved in production in the past have farmed it out and use their good name to market the product. I don't see anything wrong with this.
Another reason is barriers to market entry. If a new brand of scopes appeared in the market it would be eyed with some suppression.

In our industry Boar's Head deli products are an excellent example. They are marketing company. They contract the production to companies that actually produce the products. Some of those companies are excellent producers but never could get the volume to justify national distribution and advertising.

 

[the once-ler]

Oh I don't disagree or see a problem with it either, the problem comes in with the consumer trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. What am I actually buying and where is it coming from says a lot to the overall quality of the end product.
Example: If you bought a <+-> $2000 Nightforce scope and looked under it and saw a "Made in China" in nice bold lettering, would you feel a little cheated?? Now turn that same scope over and see (for real) "Made in Japan" and all is good with the world!

 

[haroldwilson]

Stability of company as mentioned is important. Reputation of quick service after sale if needed is important. Support of shooting community / events matters a lot to me. Look at the prize table at some matches. Nightforce hits all these check marks heavily and their stuff doesn't suck. That is why I support them.

 

[buffybuster]

Oh I don't disagree or see a problem with it either, the problem comes in with the consumer trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. What am I actually buying and where is it coming from says a lot to the overall quality of the end product.
Example: If you bought a <+-> $2000 Nightforce scope and looked under it and saw a "Made in China" in nice bold lettering, would you feel a little cheated?? Now turn that same scope over and see (for real) "Made in Japan" and all is good with the world!

That's rather naive thinking. What does "Made in Japan/Germany/USA" really mean?
If the scope was assembled in Japan/Germany/USA/English/etc from component parts made in China, would that make it "Made in Japan/Germany/USA/etc"?
How much value added or content needs to be include to be "Made There"?
If the components were finished machined from raw materials from China, would that make it "Made in Japan/etc"?

The "Where" it is made has little correlation or importance to quality. The real question is whether the production facility has the capacity and capability to produce the product consistently to the specifications provided, regardless of where it is located. We like to believe culturally some countries are more meticulous or precise than others and that might have been true at one point, but with a globalized economy, that is no longer the case.

Fifty years ago, "Made in Japan" was a joke. Thirty years ago, "Made in Korea" was a joke.

 

[Hootiewho]

I wear two hats, one a millwright/reliability technician & the other a LEO. I have worked in more plants than I can remember over the SE US. One very good example to me locally is BMW. I'm willing to bet you good money there are more US made parts in a BMW assembled in Greer SC than any Ford/Chevy/Dodge that rolls off the line. I have worked in countless supply plants to BMW, VW, FORD, Chevy.... You see where the subparts that make the parts come from and the amount of Made in China & Mexico in a Beamer is very low compared.

95% of all manufacturing is this way. That's just the way it is until WWIII breaks out.

I have a Schmidt & Bender and a couple Leupolds. I bought the Schmidt because as a whole, the Germans and Japanese I have worked with in my life are very meticulous and perfectionist. They want their product to be the best product and will work long hours after the average American has clocked out and parked their ass on the couch. This is a general statement, but true in my experience as a whole. I have never been under the impression parts/work isn't farmed out on a Schmidt, but if the company that attaches their name to it ensures a certain quality standard and backs said product reasonablly, I am happy. I would have no issue with any quality scope made now days, I just happen to favor Schmidt. I also like Nightforce and live less than 10 mins from their GA office. Several of my friends work their.

Bottom line, if it works, it works, don't sweat the small stuff. It's not like we are talking about solid rocket boosters here, it's a rifle scope.

 

[fx77]

Kinda reminds me of the 60 Minutes episode Oct 2012: Why are eyeglasses so expensive...There is really no true market driven competition...

Sticker shock: Why are glasses so expensive? - 60 Minutes Videos - CBS News

 

[the once-ler]

I think the "made in _____" stereotype stigma comes from past track records. The Chinese are well known for turning out a HUGE volume of a product but a little lacking in QC and overall quality. Can the Chinese turn out a quality product? YES they can! But volume = $$. After WWII the Japanese came back with a vengeance in the manufacturing arena, but have always been known as perfectionists, look at the Katana they did that 1000+ years ago. Look at the cars they produce, they keep it simple but ingenious in design. The Germans are the same way, having lived there and seeing how they are first hand. The Germans sweep the street in front of their houses with a broom daily. I believe we as Americans have earned worldwide a reputation as innovators and thinkers. "Manhattan Project"??
You are correct to say sourcing materials and products from anywhere can be successful but QC is everything.
If product country of origin means nil then why mark a product at all? Do you not think country of origin marking can be a badge of quality?

 

[xphunter]

One thing to consider is even when two different brands come out of the same OEM, that does not mean they are at the same quality level.
Each company will give specs to be followed. I would not assume those specs will be the same from company to company, even though they comes from the same OEM.
Some will be completely built there while others will have those manufactured parts sent to them and then assembled on site.

 

[the once-ler]

Correct, like I commented on Leupold and their lenses. Yes, I am sure I could go to say Optronika and say I want to turn out a $100 optic and they would take the cheapest components from the lowest bidder and make it. In general if a company is well known for making a very high quality product wouldn't you kind of guess most of the other brands in the same price range be of relative quality? It all comes down to price point then wouldn't you agree? Now take product A made completely in China (Countersniper) and product B (Nightforce) made wholly in Japan, same price point. And???

 

[xphunter]

I get what you are saying. But no, I wouldn't.

In general if a company is well known for making a very high quality product wouldn't you kind of guess most of the other brands in the same price range be of relative quality?

 

[delixe]

What's even funnier, are the consumers, some actually think if they pay more for X, because it has a given brand name on the side, it is better than Y with a different brand name on the side. Reason, the guys building this scope are really well known for the their expertise for 100s of years etc., when in fact they are both built by Z the only difference is the name on the side. I know a guy that only buys "German optics", he about had a heart attack when he found out where some of his zeiss scopes were actually manufactured, and that meopta was the builder!! If it cost more it must be better is a fantasy.

My Zeiss Diascope 85 FL body was assembled in China.
I'm confident that it was assembled with Zeiss produced or at least speced components, built to Zeiss's standards, and QC'ed by Zeiss.
It definitely is superb in fit and finish, mechanicals, and optics.

The idea that one scope model coming off the assembly line at LOW is the same instrument as another model sold under a different brand name is absurd.
The instruments are designed to the specification of the marketing company either internally or by a 3rd party and assembled under contract to that specification.
2 seemingly identical optics sold under different brand names can have vastly differing grades of glass, coatings, optical element arrangements, mechanics, etc.

At the low end I'm sure plenty of this rebranding is going on (BSA, Centerpoint, etc.) but not at the level of the optics that most Hide members are buying at.

 

[the once-ler]

I get what you are saying. But no, I wouldn't.

Ok.. both March and Nightforce come from Light Optics Works. You wouldn't consider them both to be of high quality? Maybe that isn't the norm but a fine example. They are very different in construction but still very high quality products.

 

[xphunter]

Yes, they are both high quality.

 

[delixe]

The scopes that I've read are being produced by LOW are all high quality.
Even the midrange Bushnell ETs are high quality. Even if they're only medium spec... the quality of their manufacture is high.
I doubt LOW is contracted to build scopes any other way.

 

[delixe]

Correct, like I commented on Leupold and their lenses. Yes, I am sure I could go to say Optronika and say I want to turn out a $100 optic and they would take the cheapest components from the lowest bidder and make it. In general if a company is well known for making a very high quality product wouldn't you kind of guess most of the other brands in the same price range be of relative quality? It all comes down to price point then wouldn't you agree? Now take product A made completely in China (Countersniper) and product B (Nightforce) made wholly in Japan, same price point. And???

I disagree.
Optronika is not a company that would take on a project like you describe.
The resources they have on hand for their core competency (high end optics) are too expensive to devote to even the design of a $100 retail instrument.

As for the example of CounterSniper, they were an anomaly... using deceptive marketing tactics to sell cheap Chinese instruments at 5 times their market value to the uneducated is not the industry norm, and I wonder how they got away with it as long as they did. CounterSniper scopes were built to the standard of other $100-$150 Chinese scopes sold by BSA and AIM Sports (for example) and no one with a clue would ever compare one of those to a Nightforce or even a "lowly" Bushnell ET or Sightron.

 

[sib1948]

A perfect example are Lens Pens. Everyone I've purchased over the years is obviously made by a manufacturer that distributes to every company I knows who sells optics-scopes, cameras, etc. They're exactly the same with different Brands stamped on the side. Great quality product at a good price.

I agree with Hootiewho, "If it works, don't sweat the small stuff!"

 

[the once-ler]

I disagree.
Optronika is not a company that would take on a project like you describe.
The resources they have on hand for their core competency (high end optics) are too expensive to devote to even the design of a $100 retail instrument.

As for the example of CounterSniper, they were an anomaly... using deceptive marketing tactics to sell cheap Chinese instruments at 5 times their market value to the uneducated is not the industry norm, and I wonder how they got away with it as long as they did. CounterSniper scopes were built to the standard of other $100-$150 Chinese scopes sold by BSA and AIM Sports (for example) and no one with a clue would ever compare one of those to a Nightforce or even a "lowly" Bushnell ET or Sightron.

I guess that brings up another question. How much does it REALLY cost to produce a NF, March, S&B compared to a less expensive one. I have a feeling the answer would be quite shocking.

 

[phlegm]

I guess that brings up another question. How much does it REALLY cost to produce a NF, March, S&B compared to a less expensive one. I have a feeling the answer would be quite shocking.

How much it really costs to produce something doesn't actually matter that much to the market as a whole (and remember to count shipping, packaging and "promotional items", QC, marketing, warranty reserves, R&D funding, customer service, and product support to the cost that the consumer pays). Cost does matter to consumers who want to feel like they have gotten the best value in their purchase. We have to remember that all business must be profitable for those engaged in it, otherwise they will find another business.

Take this into perspective, also: If a product or market has high turnover, such as those with new models every year or season (cars, apparel, bicycles, bows, smaller items, novelty items, etc.) it likely has a huge margin built in. These are also the kinds of items we see that are marked down significantly when a retailer wants to get rid of them. Other items like these premium optics (some of which are essentially the same product as sold for 5-10 years) are consistently priced and with VERY few discounts of any size. This should clue us in to the relatively low margin that companies are making on them.

 

[Lowlight]

Gotta love guys who speak with authority as if, yet miss all the little details staring them in the face.

They repeat stuff over and over like they have a clue, which is probably why all this stuff gets stirred up and is "wholly" misunderstood.

Like the obvious, "Made in USA" on several model NF Scopes

Or the fact it doesn't matter one bit, as companies can spec anything they like, the bottom line is what they can sell it for and what they can get the public to pay.

Camera lenses, etc, come from a variety of places and are a lot more critical than the optics necessary for a rifle scope. Still, nobody bitches about where Canon or Nikon is made.

Unless you have seen it with your own eyes, assuming you have a clue is a bad assumption to make, period. Either the scope is within your price point, and works as advertised fulfilling your personal needs or it doesn't, where it comes from has very little bearing.

A prime example is the new Burris XTRII, it was 100% prototyped and tested here in the US, they only produce it in mass overseas in order to keep the costs down. Most of the prototype scopes I have seen are well over the costs anyone would pay. Next, the mentions of glass debates are a useless endeavor to be begin with. If you want to debate glass, invest in a Spotter and head to bird watching forum.

I suppose I can just repeat myself over and over and speak with authority, instead of actually traveling to scope factories, both here and overseas in order to get a clue.

PS. Optronika is part of Minox now and is called GSO, German Sport Optic.

 

[the once-ler]

That is interesting seeing made in US on the NF beast, I hadn't seen one yet. I was referring to the ATACR in specific. I do own several high end spotters, they are an absolute joy to peer thru.

 

[Lowlight]

The F1 also says, Made in USA on it ... only the SFP Scopes are Made in Japan,

There are several models in the NF line up made here.

 

[Lowlight]

When you cross $5k for a rifle scope you can say, "high end" the ATACR is a mid-range scope at $2k, it's a very good scope, but it's not exactly in the deep end of pool when it comes to cost.

There are at least 4 different companies that are over $4k, with 2 of them over $6k.

 

[the once-ler]

Money just don't buy what it used to. huh? And by those companies pushing over the 3k mark are almost pricing themselves out of the market. Not many guys can afford to dump 4k+ into a riflescope.
Why are only the SFP scopes made in Japan? I wonder if NF grinds it's own glass here.

 

[Lowlight]

Why would any company, "grind their own glass" in this day and age ... every place I have been, the glass comes pre-packed.

Grinding your own is over-rated, how it would be like asking, why don't companies make their own tiny screws...

It's a rifle scope, not a spotter.

 

[the once-ler]

I can't wait to see the new stuff Minox GSO or whoever is gonna make em come out with.

 

[the once-ler]

Why would any company, "grind their own glass" in this day and age ... every place I have been, the glass comes pre-packed.

Grinding your own is over-rated, how it would be like asking, why don't companies make their own tiny screws...

It's a rifle scope, not a spotter.

Are you saying that none of them do? and if so who still does?

 

[Natty Bumpo]

they will contract out the design and production to one of only a small few large corporations that exist that have the capability to actually take the raw materials and turn them into a finished product. There are only a few worldwide sources for raw high quality OG such as Ohara, Schott Glaswerk,Hoya, CDGM etc. . . . I almost think now you need to look at exactly where your purchase is coming from NOT the guys who put their name on it? Right?

They may get glass from the same sources, but not all lenses from the same factory will have the same coatings. It's not just the optics. How many rifle makers with their "own" actions spec them out to Defiance Machine? Nothing wrong with that. GA Precision doesn't manufacture their own actions, barrels or stocks. But they still make a helluva rifle. I think HS Precision makes all their own components. How many Hide members would choose an HS Precision rifle over a GA Precision?

 

[the once-ler]

You are almost comparing apples to apples with HSP and GAP when speaking of quality

 

[MarcKA]

German Optics:
If it reads Location: Biebertal, Wetzlar or anything similar on it it's probably a Zeiss Offspring in some Way. Can't be Bad.

GSO is a Lücke & Orthmeier Company, with Hans Albert Bender being one of the CEO's, the same People that Manufacture Blaser, Sauer and Mauser Rifles and a lot more. Let's see what the Future brings.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Years ago names like Burris, Bushnell, Tasco got a rep for putting out junk, probably true cause they didn't have the higher end stuff back then. The competition wasn't what it is now either. Many companies had to really step up their game just to keep up. I told my old man the other day I was buying a Bushnell and his jaw dropped, YOU a Bushnell!? I proceeded to tell him what the deal was and he kinda smirked, I'll believe it when I see it.

It is a manufacturing experiment that has been going on for some time. Before that Burris, Weaver, Redfield, Bushnell, Tasco, Swift, and so forth were each individual manufacturers that directly competed against each other and produced good products. Along the way they sold out and whomever owns the name is now in charge. I don't know the details for these sort of companies but eventually they no longer become a going concern and a holding company will purchase the rights and begin manufacturing a better product for less cost that is passed on to the consumer. The holding company is usually an office space as opposed to a plant. An example would be Schrade Cutlery. If you are old enough you can remember seeing their display at the hardware store next to other well known cutlery manufacturers. In the case of Schrade the family sold everything to Taylor Brands LLC. Schrade lived on under new ownership and produced all the original knives but they were manufactured out of China. Eventually, the quality became as good or better than the previous U.S.A. original Schrade knives. They are still Schrade knives to the people that bought the name. The same thing is happening to manufacturers all over the world. The Optics industry is no different. The problem is most of these holding companies are private ventures so they really don't want you to know that they enjoy the right to use a name. They would rather have the consumer think they are purchasing a product name from it's roots to their original beginnings as a popular and quality item from the beginning of time. Even Leupold is playing this same game with the Redfield name. For all we know a POS Barska we make fun of is a close cousin to some other scope name/model we recommend as a economical good budget widget. I really don't trust the optics industry further than I could spit. All I care about is it durable? Does it hold zero? Is light transmission greater than 91%? It is getting to where the name on the optic is almost meaningless to the savvy buyer. Somebody thought I had a Weaver on my rifle and I do. I told him this same scope model used to say Blackhawk on it and now you can buy one that says Weaver on it. Because it now says Weaver on it I can put it on my rifle? Catch-22.

 

[Flying Goose]

Years ago in the bike industry Taiwan was getting into frame building and their original efforts were ok at best but over time they honed in their skills and started creating some really nice products (late 90's). Shortly after this Taiwan still had its original reputation but major European companies were having their frames built in Taiwan then shipped to Italy and painted and finished there. In doing this they could assign monetary values to each part of the process if paint cost 51% they could say that the frame was made in Italy. As far as I know this applies to all production and the same rules apply to optics. Just my $.02.

 

[the once-ler]

I looked at a Weaver not too long ago and I was extremely surprised at what I had seen.

 

[CSTactical]

To me it really only matters how well the scopes works and how good the customer services is.

Mike @ CSTACTICAL

 

[sobrbiker883]

I agree Mike. But then again, I'm a through and through US Optics guy.
I visit Brea whenever I'm in the neighborhood. Nice to see my where my scopes were built...

 

[VJJPunisher]

you all make my head hurt, if it works and fits in your budget who gives a fuck what 8 year old sweat shop boy whittled yer lens? everyone knows stick with NCstar and be done with it anyway

 

[Deleted member 10043]

What we have here is a Crusader.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[tylerw02]

Lots of bad information and stupid logic in this thread.

Why do you care who grinds your lenses? That's one of the least important things in a scope anyway.

Does it track? Does it have a good reticle? Is it durable? Does it hold zero? Will the elevation knob crap out? Does it have a zero stop? How sensitive is the parallax adjustment? Does the maker stand behind it? Can you afford it? What "coatings" were put on the lenses that you're so concerned about who "ground" them? What specs were they ground to?

I mean seriously, see how the scope tracks, see if the reticle works for your shooting needs, actually look and see what you can resolve with it, not just glaring through it and saying "ooooo, aaaaahhh". See if you can hit something with it!

 

[Deleted member 10043]

...See if you can hit something with it!

Probably the best advice I have seen in long time.


Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

[MC2Cool]

I think it's pretty interesting hearing everyone's perspective and theories. I find it funny when people comment with anger saying "who cares" or "it doesn't matter, pay up and shutuppppp!!1!!1!", we have forums to discuss topics and compare ideas. At the end of the day we're all paying more than what the scope is worth, sometimes a whole lot more. But as long as people continue to pay top dollar for scopes, companies will demand top dollar. Just imagine what would happen to prices if everyone decided to stop paying for high prices scopes for a year or two.

 

[tylerw02]

Who's really making what for who!?

What it's worth to who? Worth is a relative concept.

Leupold VX-Is are about $300, but I wouldn't give that to one---or $150 if I had to use it. I'd be happy to pay $2500 for a PM II. I'd pay that for a FFP NF ATCR.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[the once-ler]

what does it matter in the long run? nothing.. and everything... If they started churning out your darling PMII exclusively in the "Great Peoples Republic" and still charging 5-7k for it, would sales drop off? Go ahead and replace that badge right on the top where everyone can see "Made In Germany" with "Made in China" and see what happens.

 

[oldfatguy]

More important then "where" is what quality system is actually used day-to-day. The wonderful people known for counterfeit fasteners, glycol in infant formula, poison dog treats, and counterfeit drugs are not very likely to use any valid quality system for anything more then eye wash for the visiting customer. ISO and Six Sigma do mean a lot when used as intended. Not very likely that most of us will ever be able to audit a manufacturer's quality system so we have to make judgements based on their history.

OFG

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Well said. You are older than the average bear here. You left out Quality Circle. But wasn't somebody executed or sent into exile in every example you mentioned? Probably the oldest method of quality control.