Quite the contrary, I love the older scopes, primarily because they are of less fragile basic design. There are three ways to move the reticle into alignment with the path of the bullet. The reticle can be fixed and the scope moved in its entirety- such as the externally adjustable Unertl, B&L, Leupold Pioneer scopes; 2. the reticle can be moved within a fixed optic. these are scopes that when the dial is turned the image remains fixed and the reticle moves up and down and side to side; then there's 3, the image moves and while the reticle remains centered in the image, the image moves as the dials are turned. From 1 to 3, the internal workings are increasingly more exposed to such things as acceleration and deceleration. While a "non-adjustable" #1 scope could be mounted on virtually any rifle and suffer no problems, a #3 scope is in need of continued research and development to convince the buyers that the product is worth the money. Just look at the advertisements over the last few years regarding the Swarovski scopes the Z3 to Z6 scopes show a continuing effort to improve their ability to absorb recoil. If the 3s were able to hold up to the recoil, why did the company have to spend all the money on R&D and now advertise how great their multiple springs (not present in previous models)are at absorbing the recoil? I admit the coatings on the lenses are better than the older scopes, and some have lighted aiming points, but how safe is it to shoot after dark or into shadows so deep that you need a lighted reticle to see where your crosshair is? when the chips are sown, I'll prefer an externally adjustable scope, or a reticle moving scope, Too bad the companies have bought their own advertising as to what makes a good scope.