Mueller Optics

Based on this, I will never buy nor recommend buying a Mueller Scope.

As a primary manufacturer, I routinely take pictures of materials that are returned for repair or replacement before any work starts for just such occasions.

Please don't take that the wrong way, I have no stake in this dispute at all, and have never purchased a Muller product.

I take pictures to CYOA.

I'd like to call one other thing into question....

I'm not an engineer and I've never crushed a scope tube, perhaps someone more qualified can clarify this. On a properly mounted scope there is a small gap where the upper and lower ring meet. It would seem to me any deforming from over-tightening would occure in the area where the rings meet up, not as documented in the picture.

One more thing...

Mueller imports their scopes from Asia. The may not have the ability to repair a scope (replace the tube) and only have the option to replace Mags' scope. That said, their material and assembly cost is probably in the neighborhood of $35 for a scope that sells for $220, perhaps less. Regardless of fault, I'm surprised they won't just give Mags a new scope.

We were threatened on the phone yesterday that this would end up on the internet forums and we usually do take pictures under these circumstances anyways.. By the way, the pinched/crushed tube is on the bottom side of the tube, indicating vertically split rings were used, just like the picture the OP posted. There is nothing fishy about this, we dont have or use vertically split rings here because they are harder to verify true ring alignment. We also have no reason to even mount this scope becasue the claimed issue wouldnt call for it to be mounted anyways.

The "claimed" defect isn't even the issue here, its the damage caused to the scope that completely voided the warranty.

If I were the head of customer service for Mueller....

Our company still stands by the fact the end user damaged the product. Considering the cost of a replacement, the age of the product and our dedication to customer satisfaction, we have elected to replace the scope in question at absolutely no charge to the customer.

<end>

Considering some of the advertising banners we see on popular public forums that do cost up to $700 monthly, a sub $50 replacement scope, dollar for dollar, would be far more effective to marketing and PR. Absorbing costs such as these, form time to time is mearly a cost of doing business.

You know Art, I too wondered how they already had a picture of my scope. But the thing that still gets me is my scope arrived with the defect, it did not appear after mounting because it was already there.

Click to expand...

And what gets me is that you saw the "claimed" defect, mounted the scope anyway, damaged it in the process and now expect them to honor a warranty that YOU voided when you damaged the scope tube. Something that you claimed didn't happen in the original post.

Mueller claimed my scope has ring marks on it which it does not......The second thing is the mount I used prevents overtightening and the last problem I have with their story is I used proper torquing procedures to mount the scope.

Click to expand...

It's pretty clear to me that YOU damaged the scope. How about taking some responsibility for your actions? Or are we far too accustomed to manufacturers fixing stuff we screwed up to admit we did wrong???

If I were the head of customer service for Mueller....

Our company still stands by the fact the end user damaged the product. Considering the cost of a replacement, the age of the product and our dedication to customer satisfaction, we have elected to replace the scope in question at absolutely no charge to the customer.

<end>

Considering some of the advertising banners we see on popular public forums that do cost up to $700 monthly, a sub $50 replacement scope, dollar for dollar, would be far more effective to marketing and PR. Absorbing costs such as these, form time to time is mearly a cost of doing business.

Click to expand...

If these types of claims were few and far between, I'm sure we could support them but it happens more than you think and if you do it for one, we should do it for all of them.. Most customers admit fault and take us up on our trade-in program and that wouldnt be fair to those users if we replaced scopes just to those who make a stink about it on the forums..

I guess some of this depends on how much the trade-in scope from Mueller costs (though asked, it was never stated). If it was very low, as in around "cost", and I indeed did damage the scope, I'd be very inclined to pay for the replacement and the lesson and move on.

I'm not so high and mighty that I will stick to a position in the face of other evidence. That isn't to say in the name of reputation Mueller shouldn't have just replaced the scope. However if Mueller is asking for 75% of what the scope costs new, then I think there's a problem again.

MOC said:

If these types of claims were few and far between, I'm sure we could support them but it happens more than you think and if you do it for one, we should do it for all of them.. Most customers admit fault and take us up on our trade-in program and that wouldnt be fair to those users if we replaced scopes just to those who make a stink about it on the forums..

Click to expand...

If your trade-in program is priced at a point where you're simply covering costs, then perhaps you've made a fair proposal. How much is the trade-in on a $220 scope?

Taken from another forum (not my post):

A long time ago I learned my lesson on cheap (not always inexpensive) scopes.

Over the years I've had great performance and service from Burris and Sightron products.

I've had several of both makes and managed to damage one of each. Even after telling them that I caused the damage both companies fixed the scopes for free and had them back out of their shops in just a couple of business days.

I had bought the Burris used and when I mentioned that the service rep said "We warrant the scope, not the buyer".

I especially like the Sightron SII Big Sky scopes.

I agree with ArtP on the above. I have learned the lesson of dealing with cheap scopes. I will only buy Vortex Optics, as they will honor their warranty, I have first hand experience. Or, go with US or higher end optics.

I will not take any scope made in China as a serious optic and as this thread shows you get what you pay for.
Having a company rep get on a forum and wrestle in the mud is even worse. They should have been contrite and settled the mess rather than accuse the customer of fraud. I wonder how many on this forum have distorted a tube from tightening rings on good quality scopes?
I have and have seen 100's of domestic Leupold, Weaver, Burris, and Redfield scopes mounted and never seen a crushed tube. I have witnessed a few striped base holes and believe that is the fail point on most setups.
We will only see quality again when we quit lining the Red Chinese pockets with our dollars.

I purchased a Mueller Quickshot for use on a browning buckmark. I really liked the multiple recticles and size/view. Upon going to use if for the second time (and just outside the 30 day warranty) I noticed the glass was cracked. Don't know how it happened as I'm usually pretty careful and it's mounted on a .22 so it wasn't recoil related. Anyway - I contacted Mueller directly, they told me to send it back, no check necessary, and promptely replaced it for free. This was my first experience with Mueller and maybe I got lucky, but their service for my problem was quick and courteous and problem free. YMMV

X-Rap said:

Having a company rep get on a forum and wrestle in the mud is even worse. They should have been contrite and settled the mess rather than accuse the customer of fraud.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more or put it better. Wrestling in the mud over a trivial amount of money casts a huge shadow on the company. Whatever.

The only way to crush a scope tube would be to use a smaller sized ring set.
If it was crushed while using the correct sized rings, then the scope is out of spec or just junk.

The only way to crush a scope tube would be to use a smaller sized ring set.
If it was crushed while using the correct sized rings, then the scope is out of spec or just junk.

Click to expand...

That's not true I've seen it done before. There is usually a small gap between ring halves if you tighten them enough to close that gap you'll crush the scope.

jerkface11,
I have never seen it, but I guess you have.

That's not true I've seen it done before. There is usually a small gap between ring halves if you tighten them enough to close that gap you'll crush the scope.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen it done before but I think you're right on how it could happen. But I have never seen or heard of it happening with a high quality scope. Usually the screws will strip or break on the rings before the tube is affected. I use a small torque-wrench screwdriver to avoid this possibility.

I recently decided not to bother with anything but a few top brands that are mostly made in Japan (save Nikon being made in the Philippines, ironically). When you look at rifle and ammo prices the modest cost savings isn't enough to be worth chancing it.

Of course I have no personal knowledge of what Mags did, but I've sure read a lot of his posts and have never had any reason to question anything he claimed as fact (we differ in a few opinions unimportant to this thread).

MOC, if your scope tubes will crush easily enough that Mags didn't realize he crushed it and so that the markings on the outside paint were tiny, I don't think I'll be needing to buy one of your scopes.

At fault or not, the above is why I generally purchase optics from folks that have a well established reputation for customer service. Might I recommend a Vortex Viper (or even a Diamondback) 4-12x40mm as a suitable replacement, I believe they have better glass quality and unquestionably afford a much better warranty. Others worth mention include Sightron, Nikon, Bushnell, and Leupold (though they aren't a good value IMO).

MOC, if your scope tubes will crush easily enough that Mags didn't realize he crushed it and so that the markings on the outside paint were tiny, I don't think I'll be needing to buy one of your scopes.

Click to expand...

+1 if properly torqued (as stated by Mr. Mags), though I no longer purchase Chinese optics anyway.

Wrestling in the mud over a trivial amount of money casts a huge shadow on the company. Whatever.

Click to expand...

As does bending over backwards to give somebody, who is in the wrong, what they want just to avoid a fight. It is not Mueller who has made this public but welcome to the internet, the universal complaint department.


I have never seen a scope, regardless of quality, mounted into Weaver brand clamshell rings that did NOT have some sort of tube distortion. I've seen plenty of scope tubes damaged because the installer torqued them down too hard.


As I said before, I do NOT think we're getting the whole story from the OP.


It's also amazing to me how so many folks will use a single issue like this, with lots of question as to who is really at fault here, to completely disregard a manufacturer from future consideration. Especially considering how stellar their reputation is and just how many shooters DO recommend their products. As usual, folks tend to focus on the negative.

Oh, Mags, I would drop a note to Midway also. I don't think they have any responsibility to you - the standard rule is always that once you mount a scope, it's not returnable - but they might choose to help you out anyway, and even if they don't, if nothing else it's good to keep them informed of the quality of the various products they sell.

CraigC said:

As does bending over backwards to give somebody, who is in the wrong, what they want just to avoid a fight. It is not Mueller who has made this public but welcome to the internet, the universal complaint department.

As I said before, I do NOT think we're getting the whole story from the OP.

Click to expand...

Craig. Do the math. Righ or wrong really doesn't matter. The only thing that truly matters in the end is future sales and the reputation of the company.

20 years ago I went on my first gun buying spree. I spent a couple thousand dollars at one local shop. One of the items was a very cheap rimfire scope. The reticle broke on its first outing, couple days after purshase. I took the scope back to the shop and asked for a replacement, was refused and instead given the address to send it back to the manufacturer. I was dealing with the owner

I was pissed! I never went back and the several thousand I have spent since the incident went elsewhere. Was the owner wrong or unethical? No. Stupid, yes! I simply would have tossed the $40 ($20 cost) scope in the trash, given me a new one - with a smile - and said, "sorry buddy". Penny wise pound foolish. I'm suggesting that in exchange for dollars and loyalty I expect the benefit of the doubt and good service - as in, "you send it back".

I had bought and sold through them a Ruger P85, then bought a Beretta 92, Walther PPK, 10/22 and cheap scope. He should have said, "why don't I credit you $40 toward a better quality scope that you will be happy with?" At the time I didn't know any better and would have eaten up his advice.

Part of my job is customer service. I've bitten my lip and sucked it up plenty, though I was right on principle. I have eaten costs in the couple hundred range to be rewarded with contracts worth thousands later. Again, just do the math.

Unless the Mueller guy is following strict policy, that states he should be *publicly* arguing with customers, he ought to be canned.

CraigC said:

As does bending over backwards to give somebody, who is in the wrong, what they want just to avoid a fight

Click to expand...

HA...I've seen it done many many many times. Allowing a known fraudulent customer to fraud a company out of hundreds of dollars just to avoid them complaining...even if it is just in a single store. Then you have a left hand and a right hand in a company going at these situations completely different ways.

Loss prevention says nip it in the bud
management says give them what they want
both of them can say you will be fired if you don't do it their way.

One more thing I'm wondering about:

The second thing is the mount I used prevents overtightening and the last problem I have with their story is I used proper torquing procedures to mount the scope.

Click to expand...

For reference, I laid a ring half on the tube just so you can see how badly the scope tube was actually pinched/crunched from the customers rings.

Click to expand...

Mags, what is the mount and how does it prevent overtightening? And what was your torquing procedure?

Anyone - anyone else who has a Mueller scope, especially this model, would you mind measuring the tube diameter with a precision caliper and posting the results here?

Just wondering if the tube might have been crushed by being too big.