Mueller Optics

Status
Not open for further replies.
I used an Amercian Defense mount, it has a metal sandwich on the bottom portion of the mount that when tightened the rings are closed on the sandwich piece not the scope.

I used a CDI adjustable screwdriver type torque wrench set at 15 inch lbs.

The American Defense mount cost almost as much as the scope. With that type of mount there should only be one crease from "pinching" if it was overtightened. (if that's possible) Also this mount uses horizontal force to hold the scope in place there is no downward force from tightening the rings. I also included on page 1 a picture of the scope mounted on the rifle.

Here is a link to the mount: http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productnumber=148803
 
I was pissed!
Click to expand...
You're basically saying that you refuse to do business with a gun shop because they won't give you a freebie? Because they won't bribe you??? If this is the case, why not also hang Midway out to dry because they will not accept a returned scope that has been mounted?

I've had a half dozen cheap junker scopes poop out on me. Did I go back to the shop and demand my money back? No. I put them in a box to remind me that money is never wasted on good optics. That's MY cost of doing business. The bottom line is that I don't expect somebody else to bail me out of either making a mistake, or making a poor decision. YMMV.....obviously. :rolleyes:

When and where, exactly, does Mags take responsibility for damaging the scope???
 
Here is another question, if Mueller is stating that the rings were over tightened, then Mueller would have provided torq specs, correct?
 
Last edited:
CraigC said:
You're basically saying that you refuse to do business with a gun shop because they won't give you a freebie? Because they won't bribe you??? If this is the case, why not also hang Midway out to dry because they will not accept a returned scope that has been mounted?

[/U][/B]
Click to expand...

If I pay full price I expect full service - they should have sent it back for me. If I pay a discounted price on the internet, I get what I pay for and don't exepect too many hoops jumped through on my behalf on a low profit margin item.

I expect what I pay for. I did not demand a new scope. I did demand they take care of the problem.

I was not expecting a freebie. I paid for a scope and expected a scope. I expected them to assist with the warranty or replace it. Their position was they were unaccountable the minute the scope was paid for (even before it left their shop). I had also bought a Ruger P85 that didn't function correctly. I gave the benefit of the doubt and let them make 25% on reselling it for me, examined a Beretta at another store, then paid full price for the Beretta from their store (which they ordered). It's called loyalty. In exchage for my loyalty and money I expected some assistance with the scope. I don't think I had unreasonable expectations.

Why pay full retail, when the service is no better than mail order?

If I pay $30 for a medium rare steak dinner and it comes well done, it's going back. If I buy a $2 big mac and it's missing the beef entirely, in the trash it goes and I'm on my way - no complaints.
 
Last edited:
When and where, exactly, does Mags take responsibility for damaging the scope???
Click to expand...
Maybe when Mueller can prove that I damaged the scope.

1. The scope had a defect when I received it read my review on Midway on 24 Aug.
2. The damage to the scope is not correct for my mount. Also maybe because I am not familiar with the subject as well as an optic company tech, but I really don't notice a crushed scope in the blurry picture.
3. What the hell kind of scope is crushed under normal torquing procedures?
4. What kind of cheap paint is inside these Mueller scopes that flakes off into the optic?
5. I truly beleived in the warranty of this company to replace a product that arrived with a defect their warranty should not change if the scope was mounted or not.

Haven't you reveiewed the evidence of the email between me and Dave at Mueller as well as the review I did on Midway, and the review of the rifle and scope. Not to mention have you read Mueller's warranty, a warranty that not even Dave at Mueller is familiar with.

I truly believed the scope was of nice quality besides the defect and that is what drove me to go through all this trouble for a return.
 
Last edited:
Originally I was unhappy to hear about a company trying to get out of a warranty claim. Then they took a stand and actually provided photos to back up their side. Looking at the evidence they provided I would have to say they are in the right. I seriously doubt they would go to the trouble of intentionally damaging your scope and refusing to fix it. It seems to me that their offer to to provide a new scope at a highly discounted price is more than they were required to do and a generous offer considering what the optic looks like.



Now, I use ADM mounts. They are heavy duty and frankly I would be willing to bet that the screws and rings are stronger than most scope bodies. You are also supposed to tighten them in a specific way. If you do not it is possible to pinch the scope as shown in this photo. I almost did it with an Aimpoint, although I doubt the Aimpoint would have buckled.


Now this of course doesn't excuse the defect you say you found from the factory. But if I go out and buy something with a defect, use it anyway and damage it, I would not expect the company to replace it. It should have been sent back immediately upon finding the problem.

Not to be rude, but it seems your own impatience is what led to the larger problem.
 
I seriously doubt they would go to the trouble of intentionally damaging your scope and refusing to fix it.
Click to expand...

Absent photos from both Mags and MOC showing that the scopes each one is referring to had identical serial #s (if Mueller scopes are serial numbered in the first place), I am wondering if in fact Mueller's warranty department mixed up the scope Mags sent back in with some other customer's scope. That seems like the only explanation that doesn't require one party to by lying, and it also seems entirely plausible - boxes get opened and stuff gets jumbled up rather often in shipping/receiving departments.
 
Well, just visited the Mueller website and the warranty is pretty clear about issues with mounting voiding the warranty.
This tells me several things.
1. The warranty is right out front and the website states a copy is included with the scope.
2. There is a known issue with Mueller scopes being damaged during the mounting stage.
3. Mueller has done nothing to correct the issue, other then beef up their warranty to exclude mounting damage.
4. Steer clear of Mueller.
 
Mags, do you have the scope back in your possession now? If so, can you take a photo of it with a ring sitting on the tube similar to the one posted by MOC. Also, see my comments below to MOC. If you have another "good" scope, put a ring on that as well for comparison.

MOC, if you're going to post a photo claiming that a tube is damaged, at least post another photo of the same ring sitting on a tube that isn't damaged. Anyone who's used a camera knows that shadows can play tricks. Just ask Wispa who posted this thread showing what he perceived to be a crack in the breach face of his Glock.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=546521

Also, the photo should be in focus and the serial number should be clearly shown in the photo too. Let's face it, that could be any scope and the ring may not even be true. If I were trying to make a point to anyone with any amount of intelligence, I'd make quite a bit more effort than you. So far I'm not impressed.

:)
 
D'oh on my part I did not get the S/N before I shipped my scope in to them, I didn't think anything like this would happen.

And no I have not received the scope back yet, it is probably in transit if Mueller in fact has shipped it back to me.
 
Well, when you get it back, I suggest that you take some photos of it and post them here.

:)
 
I sure will. I just hope they didn't make the internals worse if they indeed took the scope aopart. I hope they assembled it correctly and purged it instead of not caring anymore and slapping it back together.

The scope was useful when I sent it back, it just had an annoying spec of something in the view.
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression that they refused to work on the internals based on what they claimed was a crushed outer tube. Add that to the list of things to report back on once you have the scope.

:)
 
They claimed the damage to the internals was due to the crushed tube. They said it caused the paint to crack on the inside of the scope and flake off. Whether they came to that conlusion by dissasembling the scope or by just looking at the outside appearance I do not know.
 
So what, now the theory is that Mueller is intentionally giving you a bad product? Please.

It is painfully obvious to me, from the picture, that the scope's tube is indented consistent with the design of the American Defense mount. No scope ring is designed to be tightened until the gap closes. So if you're tightening your rings until the gap is closed, then you're over-tightening your mounts and should expect damage.

For what it's worth, I have the identical scope mounted on my Savage 93R17 in Warne quick release rings. It has performed flawlessly for the three years I've had it and even survived being dropped onto concrete directly onto the scope.
 
CraigC said:
if you're tightening your rings until the gap is closed, then you're over-tightening your mounts and should expect damage.
Click to expand...

Uh ... post #51

Mags said:
I used a CDI adjustable screwdriver type torque wrench set at 15 inch lbs.
Click to expand...
 
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?
Click to expand...

I happened to have my rifle with the same model scope mounted on it sitting behind me, and the scope measured at different points along the tube between 1.005" and 1.010"

Certainly not large enough to cause distortion with proper sized rings and proper torque.

After seeing the picture, I have to agree with Mueller on this one. I for one am glad to see industry responsiveness to firearms forums, even if it doesn't turn out well for a THR member.

I am also not aware of any scope ring design that will absolutely prevent the user from overtightening.

Mags, are you sure the scope was NIB and unused when you recieved it? It is possible that MidwayUSA restocked a scope that was returned to them believing it had not been mounted.
 
Uh, you still have to tighten the top to clamp against the scope tube. Else the whole thing doesn't work.
 
Mags, are you sure the scope was NIB and unused when you recieved it? It is possible that MidwayUSA restocked a scope that was returned to them believing it had not been mounted.
Click to expand...
This could be especially since the scope arrived with the interior defect. In hindsight I should have packed it up when received and sent it back to Midway.

Craig, it is obvious you are loyal to your Mueller scope as I would have been if they repaired/replaced my scope. It was a nice optic but their CS stinks.
I torqued the scope down to 15 in pounds which is very conservative some people use 20-30 in lbs.

Craig do you even know what you are talking about or are you just speaking with emotion?
 
Thanks for the heads up.

I know I'll never have to deal with this shady outfit---cause I'll never be buying anything from them.

They should have replaced the scope--no questions asked---then if he came back again with issues this whole internet spat should have occured. Not until then.
 
Mags, all I'm trying to do is put things in perspective. Folks are trying to act as if Mueller is a fly-by-night outfit selling junk to unsuspecting customers but nothing could be further from the truth. Regardless of what some folks here may think, Mueller is EXTREMELY well reputed and their products are highly recommended among those who know. Based on that and what has been presented here, I'm FAR more likely to lend credibility to the manufacturer over an anonymous character. Fact is, your singular issue, regardless of who is at fault is statistically insignificant, yet is easily blown completely out of proportion by passersby.

The bottom line is that you should not have mounted a defective scope, period.

You should also NOT have made this a public issue until all efforts to resolve this between you and Mueller had been exhausted.


Craig do you even know what you are talking about or are you just speaking with emotion?
Click to expand...
No, I fell off the turnip truck this morning. :rolleyes:
 
You should also NOT have made this a public issue until all efforts to resolve this between you and Mueller had been exhausted.
Click to expand...
They have been Craig.

Again if you actualy read my posts I was impressed with the scope, I just did not like my dealings with their CS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Re: Mueller Optics
2 3
Replies
66
Views
4K
markb5446
M
minutemen1776
  • Locked
Mueller APV or Bushnell Legend for .17 HMR?
Replies
9
Views
2K
24kshooter
2
M
  • Locked
Back from the range after mounting optics on the DPMS 7.62 (308) Mark 12
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
gglass
G
J
  • Locked
Mueller Tact. Scopes?
Replies
6
Views
684
Pat4x4
P
G
  • Locked
Mueller scope quality?
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
Pat4x4
P
Back
Top