Well I used Weaver rings on about 12 rifles over the years, but only 2 scopes wound up with impressions, and both were Mueller scopes. I just checked my Leupold scope and my Simmons Whitetail classic, no impressions, both had the same type of Weaver rings. I have a super cheap simmons scope on a 22 rifle with the same Weaver ring (type), no impressions. Whyizzzit only the Mueller scopes have impressions? Geee, maybe its the SAME reason that the weight of their scopes is always at the bottom of the heap for the size. Light is nice, but too light means a weak thin tube.
I think capitalism works like this: We buy these scopes from companies so the CEO can drive a Mercedes or a BMW, and we are ok with paying his salary with a huge markup on the product so he can drive the Mercedes/BMW. But that is only the case if we don't get ripped off. Now when people start seeing that the product has an issue and the CEO (driving his Mercedes/BMW) doesn't make the customer satisfied, then people start to talk/email. So this is the part of capitalism where the customer gets to set things straight and put the word out that the CEO's warranty isn't worth didley.
Rather than take shots at the poor guys that got shafted on a bad scope that had no warranty, we should remember these incidents prior to future purchases. I am lucky that my Mueller scopes (impressions and all) work fine. But all should be informed that a Mueller warranty isn't worth didley.
Incidentally, I have a Mauser with an older Redfield base and Redfield rings, wearing a Mueller hybrid. I am tempted to take it off as I bet there are impressions. I will check this and report. I expect to find them because back when Redfield made those rings, rifle scopes were a bit heavier but had more durable thicker walled tubes.
So IMHO, scope manufacturers should start focusing a little more on durability rather than the lowest weight rating in the specs on a website.