Author: RifleDude
Subject: open letter to SWFA about SS 5-20x 50mm
Posted: April/13/2015 at 18:22
JRT wrote:
I am not suggesting a major redesign, or a major increase in inventory, rather am merely suggesting that they add some scopes to their next order, an airgun variant with a different adjustment of the objective lens, and with suitable markings on the focus knob.
Nobody characterized anything in this as being a "huge seller".
They might sell a worthwhile quantity of suitably altered SS 5-20x50mm, if offered at similar pricing.
I think those would be very much more popular than the $3,449.00 Schmidt und Bender 12.5-50x56mm field target airgun scopes that SWFA currently offers for sale.
http://swfa.com/Field-Target-C1718.aspx
You draw a good comparison in mentioning bench-rest segment, a small subset of shooters, but large enough that some like March offer some scopes specialized to that application.
It seems false logic to use .22LR and springer airgun markets as predictors of the pre-charged pneumatic (PCP) airgun market. PCP is unrelated to .22LR because the airgun is not a firearm, may be lawfully used in many places where it is unlawful to use a firearm. The PCP can be much more powerful than a springer, useful at significantly longer range than a springer, on larger critters than a springer. And many PCPs are nearly as quiet as a suppressed .22LR, and can be used where suppressors are unlawful.
Recent prolonged shortages and increased market prices in ammo and reloading components for firearms may have also increased consumer interest in the PCP airguns. There has been no shortage of air to compress, no shortage of high quality pellets at moderate cost, and you don't need to buy anything from a local retailer with an FFL and state license, rather can buy everything over the phone or online and have it shipped to your door.
Please don't take what I'm about to say here or in my previous post as me trying to butt heads with you, as that's not my intent at all. I'm merely attempting to explain why things aren't as simple as they may seem here. I also don't pretend to speak for SWFA in this matter. Who knows, they may very well think your suggestion is a good idea and act accordingly? I'm also not privy to their costs and "break even" sales volume metrics and therefore cannot make a call on their behalf for what is and isn't good business.
What I can tell you is that there are a lot of misconceptions in your posts. This isn't a slam against you, as these are common misconceptions people outside the manufacturing world have about manufactured goods in general. I don't know what your background is, and maybe you do have manufacturing knowledge, but what I can tell you is what may seem simple on the surface, is anything but. I'm a manufacturing engineer and have worked in various aspects of a production environment my entire career out of college, so I speak from that perspective.
First, changing the parallax focus to enable closer focusing is not a minor design revision with a "different adjustment of the objective lens" and a small change to the focus knob; it requires redesigning the optical system, which involves significant cost.
Second, production volume is directly related to cost and is perhaps the largest driver of retail price. Any time you run a small production run of anything, even if it involves only a minor change, doing so involves not only diverting production away from larger volume items that sell better, but it also reduces production efficiency. It involves changing setups, part flow routings, using different parts, interrupting line rates, increasing the possibility of error, etc., and the manufacturer's fixed overhead costs for that time are amortized over a smaller number of units. Variation always increases cost. Smaller production volume always increases cost. Always. It's not a simple matter of "adding some scopes to their next order" of a slightly different variant.
Therefore, it's unlikely that a variation of the existing scope to satisfy a relatively small, niche market could be "offered at similar pricing." A more likely scenario would be if they ever decided to revise the scope in the future, to go ahead and provide it with closer focus capability... IF that is possible within the existing design framework.
On March scopes... they are a boutique item, and because they are designed for a small subset of shooters, they have a price tag to reflect that fact. Yes, March scopes are well made and complex, which is part of the reason they are expensive, but low volume is the biggest driver of high price. Producing anything in low volume = high price. If you produced a special version of the SS 5-20X50 to satisfy a small market segment, it would likely drive the price up to where it negates the advantage of buying the SS 5-20 vs more expensive scopes to begin with.
On your "false logic" paragraph:
I'm savvy on everything pertaining to PCPs, how they differ from springer and .22 rimfires, and the capabilities and applications for each. In addition to owning just about every classification of rifle shaped device that flings projectiles downrange, I own an AirForce Condor. And, none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the point I was attempting to make with regards to scopes for each. Despite the obvious differences in the guns, the scopes used for each are pretty similar. First, whether you're talking rimfires, springers, or PCPs, all are best served with scopes equipped with close range parallax focus. Second, the overwhelming majority of both rimfire shooters and airgun shooters of all types tend to buy cheap scopes, for whatever reason. I don't happen to subscribe to this thought process, and obviously you don't either, but lets face it, we are in the minority. Third, scope manufacturers tend to classify their close-focus scopes as "rimfire and airgun" scopes. They lump them in the same category. Plus, if they classify a given scope as "airgun compatible," they don't know whether the buyer will be using it on a springer or PCP, so they usually design them to deal with the "reverse recoil" a springer produces. The simple fact is, the conspicuous lack of "high end" or even "upper mid-tier" scopes with extremely close focus tells you that the market for such scopes isn't very large, or they would be produced. Those that were produced only a decade ago have since been discontinued. Right or wrong, the overwhelming number of both airgun and rimfire shooters mount inexpensive scopes on their rifles...and the market reflects that fact. Just like the benchrest community example, you represent a very small subset of airgun shooters. That may very well change in the near future, but right now that's the reality.
I totally get the economics, convenience, and appeal of PCPs (or any airgun for that matter), as reflected by the fact I own one. That doesn't change the fact that, for better or worse, you represent a very small segment of airgun shooters, and if there was high enough demand for the scope you want, someone would eventually supply it. The fact that nobody does would seem to answer the question of demand. I really like high end, compact midrange variable scopes in the 1.5-6X or 2-7X range with modest objective diameters on big game hunting rifles, but evidently I'm in the minority because most scopes in that class that were once available have been discontinued.