Mueller Optics

Status
Not open for further replies.
I also have to throw this comment in there. While it may have been Mags fault, we never will know. I know like Mueller I wouldn't want to replace a scope a customer damaged, however in this industry there are other scope manufacturers that will. So to be competitive in this industry, I think you have to be willing to eat the costs and go ahead and fix it. If you don't why would customers take the chance of buying your product when they could just buy a Vortex or in most cases Leupold who they know will take care of them? The answer is that they won't buy your product. So if I owned a scope company while I wouldn't want to take the hit and replace it, I would so that my company could stay competitive.

Sorry, but I will not be buying a Mueller either after seeing this thread. Who knows who is telling the truth here. However, I don't want to be one of the customers that has an issue that they refuse to fix. So I will just buy from a company that I know will take care of me.
 
Remember going to a restaurant and they had a bad drink or some portion of the food platter that was limp or not all that tasty? Did you ever go back? Maybe if it was the only restaurant in town.

I was looking at all kinds of scopes for a 24" AR and Mueller was in the consideration. I won't say I will never buy one but do to the cloud hanging over their name I think I will elect to spend my money on something else.

Got this from another thread.

1st Place: Vortex Diamondback 3-9x40
This is the best overall scope here and not by a small margin. It is mechanically good and optically excellent for the money. The eyepiece is a little fatter than on other scopes here, but I doubt it is sufficiently large to cause bolt handle clearance issues on most rifles. The reticle remains fairly visible even in rather nasty lighting conditions (I still think that #4 reticle in this scope would be better) and low light image artifacts are well controlled.


2nd Place: Burris Fullfield II 3-9x40
FFII is in a firm second place. It is not quite as good as the Diamondback, but it is appreciably better than the other scopes I looked at. This model has been around for some time, so perhaps it is overshadowed by the Diamondback simply because it is an older design. On the other hand FFII has an excellent record for durability and performance in the field. Optically, its center field performance is very good, but Diamondback offer a more contrasty image and wider field of view.


3rd Place: Bushnell Elite 3200 3-9x40
While I was pretty sure of where this scope fits in this comparison, I was not entirely sure of how to summarize my impressions on it. For example, Burris that ranked above it was pretty good in everything, but I can't say there is one feature that stands out. It is just a good allround scope. Elite 3200 is a different story altogether. Mechanically, it is the most solid-feeling scope here. Also, it has Rainguard outer coatings which are helpful in wet weather. On the other hand, it has a little bit of tunnel vision (not much) and it needs better coatings since there were some fairly strong internal reflections off of the glass. Another positive is that Elite 3200 line up is very extensive and offers several reticle choices including the FireFly reticle that works very well in low light. Like the Fullfield II, Elite 3200 3-9x40 has been around for some time now. Perhaps, I would have been better served by one of the more recently designed Elite 3200 scopes, but 3-9x40 was the configuration I wanted.


4th Place: Redfield Revolution 3-9x40
This is the new kid on the block, and it is getting a pretty good start. It has a few things going for it:
◦assembled in USA by Leupold (i.e. built in customer base of Leupold fans)
◦slim eyepiece and nice styling: the scope looks right
◦good allround performance
This scope, to me, was kinda like Burris FFII only fifty bucks cheaper and not quite as good. I wish it had a little better contrast, and I wish the knobs were less flimsy feeling. Aside from that, I liked the scope and I can't think of another scope that costs $150 and performs better. I think I have a Sightron S1 3-9x40 sitting in my safe somewhere. I think I'll dig it out and quickly compare it to the Redfield. I suspect that these two are your best bets in this price range (assuming it holds up long term, but only time can determine that).


5th Place: Nikon ProStaff 3-9x40
I might get some flak for what I am about to say, but here it is anyway: I do not get the reason behind this scope. I just can't figure out who I would recommend it to. That is my litmus test: "will this scope be my recommendation for any sort of situation?" With the ProStaff, the answer is an emphatic "no". Optically, is pretty close to Elite 3200, except it does not have Rainguard, knobs are not finger adjustable and available reticles do not work well in low light. Redfield is cheaper and sleeker styled. Plus it has the support of Leupold customer service behind it. Now, here is the kicker: ProStaf is most certainly not a bad scope; however, the competition is awfully good and numerous.
 
I think you have to be willing to eat the costs and go ahead and fix it.
Easy to say when it's not your money. Like MOC stated, this is not the first time this has happened and that it is a common occurrence. So to replace one when the customer is clearly at fault, is to replace them all. If you ever been in customer service as a small business owner, sometimes the customer IS wrong. Walmart can afford to replace your cheap Chinese junk if it breaks because they're counting on all the other cheap Chinese junk you're gonna buy. A smaller business owner can't afford to eat costs left and right due to the stupidity of others. IMHO, stupidity is SUPPOSED to hurt. It just gets me how so many people think they're entitled to a free ride when they make a mistake. Even folks like shooters who are typically very conservative politically just don't realize how much liberalism has seeped into their lives. This entitlement nonsense is a big part of that. I applaud Mueller for taking a stand on this, rather than bending to the liberal will.


So I will just buy from a company that I know will take care of me.
How do you ever know? The reason I say this is because we buy stuff according to reputation. If you do any research on this issue, you will find that there are VERY, VERY few complaints about Mueller. This is actually the first I've ever heard and only the second I could find in a search. The other issue was taken care of without incident. Why? Because the scope was defective and the customer did not damage it. Like I said before, the water here is so muddy and one issue is statistically insignificant. So to judge Mueller as a whole, based on this incident alone where the owner actually damaged the scope, clearly voiding the explicit written warranty in the process, despite MASSIVE numbers of satisfied and loyal customers, is utterly stupid. But such is life.
 
Mags, you clearly damaged your scope, it voided your written warranty in plain terms. Own up to it.

"The warranty is void if damage results from unauthorized repair, alteration, abuse or misuse."

Why is this even an issue?
CrunchedTube1.jpg
 
Mags, you clearly damaged your scope, it voided your written warranty in plain terms. Own up to it.

You have omniscient knowledge of all facts relating to this argument?

You know that the photo represents Mags' scope? You know for a fact that Mueller didn't accidentally switch scopes in receiving? You know that the damaged tube wasn't like that when Midway shipped it to Mags?
 
Maybe it was a customer return to Midway which accidentally made it's way into the new stock. Previous owner overtightens mount, crushing tube and causing paint to come lose inside, returns it to Midway because it's "defective". I wouldn't think 15 in. lbs. would do that to a scope tube.
 
No one has even responded as to if Mueller provided an install procedure and/or torque specs?
If they did not, then it looks to be that Mueller should replace it and revamp their process for what goes out with the scopes.
If they did, then I only hope that MAGS followed the instructions.
I do found it hard to believe that MAGS damaged it. Look at his background on the site here. Look at the evidence provided with the review and so on.
 
Mags, you clearly damaged your scope, it voided your written warranty in plain terms. Own up to it.
So we are to believe that a new member claiming to be a Mueller employee (which I am not contesting) rather than the OP who has been around here for a while and specifically states that he used proper installation procedures before mounting. I don't know who, if either, is right; but I certainly wouldn't be so quick to judge. OTOH what I do see is poor CS (or a lack thereof) of a product that is made in China...what's not to love? :rolleyes:
 
madcratebuilder said:
It doesn't take much to dent the aluminum tube. 15in lbs of tightening force is a lot of clamping force, put a scope ring on your finger and tighten it down to 15 in lbs.

No it's not. Even with misaligned rings, 15 in-lb won't dent or damage a quality tube. Maybe that's the problem.

That photo taken by a Mueller is about as conclusive as a "who killed JFK" special ... as I stated in post #61.

:)
 
Last edited:
Mueller should just recoat the interior of the scope tube with a better application of anti-reflective paint.

That is all the OP asked for and it would not cause Mueller to have to replace any parts.

Hiding behind a claim of abuse is nonsense; the defect was there (documented in the OP's review on the Midway site) before the scope was mounted.

Mags, if Mueller persists in denying you warranty service, ask your state consumer bureau to request Mueller's records of returns due to flaking paint inside the scope. I wager that yours was not the only such return.

And stop buying optics made in China.

mbogo
 
No it's not. Even with misaligned rings, 15 in-lb won't dent or damage a quality tube. Maybe that's the problem.

That photo taken by a Mueller is about as conclusive as a "who killed JFK" special ... as I stated in post #61.
Why does your quote say that I said that 15 in lbs would damage a scope tube? I saw where a memeber said that, but it wasn't me so I'm not sure what made it say that I said it. Unless I quoted it or something.

Anyway, as for the optics made in China that's another one of my issues with these scopes, but that's besides the point. I've bought some darn good products from China, so that part doesn't bother me like it does a lot of people. However most of the other made in China scopes are in the sub 100 price range. So why would I spend $230 for a scope made in China when the rest are under $100?
 
hometheaterman said:
Why does your quote say that I said that 15 in lbs would damage a scope tube? I saw where a memeber said that, but it wasn't me so I'm not sure what made it say that I said it. Unless I quoted it or something.

Ooops ... my mistake ... corrected!

:)
 
I figured maybe I'd quoted it and the computer made a mistake when you quoted it thinking I'd said it, but I wasn't sure.
 
Mags, you clearly damaged your scope, it voided your written warranty in plain terms. Own up to it.
Regardless if I did, which I followed normal torquing procedures for mounting my scope, that doesn't change the fact I received a defective product from Mueller in the first place.

Why are you so obtuse on this? I know you love your Mueller scopes and I am not attacking them. I just wanted whatever was stuck inside of my scope removed. I don't want a new tube or new scope I just wanted them to remove whatever was in the optic when I received the scope from Midway. I was happy with the "crushed" tube I just wanted the gunk inside the scope gone!

To be honest with you I don't see any "evidence" in Mueller's picture either.
 
I call BS on this photo

This photo is an image taken out of a technicians manual. It was even titled
( crushedtube1 ).

This is certainly ( Not ) a photo of any customers scope.

crunchedtube1.jpg


TK
 
Mags if you say u did not crush the tube I for one believe you. If that picture is taken from a manual in publication and they are trying to pass that off on you then..

Welcome to the new America!!????

I was just reading and hanging back for I wasn't there so I really had no right to lay blame on either side. But if that picture came out of a published manual and they are hanging it on you, as it is you fault then I am pissed right there with you! That is just not right.
 
Not saying I doubt you, but can you provide the tech manual it come out of?

Nope, but I worked in Graphic Arts and Printing for 3 decades and bro, I'm just calling it the way I see it.

It is to bad the manufacturer tried passing this as a customers product.

TK
 
One thing I'm curious about is what was the price they offered you on a new scope? Several people have asked but I don't see an answer. Is there a reason this question is being avoided? I mean did they try to tell you it would be $15 for a new one? Or did they try to sell it to you for $170 or something like that?

That makes a difference because if it really was damaged and they really would replace it at their cost, that might not be a horrible thing. However, I'm wondering if it's their cost, or if it's their cost, plus a ton of markup.
 
Just by coming on here and disputing the claim--they lost many potential customers(including myself) by showing what you can expect from their customer service.

If they would have just replaced Mags scope--he would have been on here giving them props on how well he was treated---and everybody on here would going --"Hey maybe I should buy one cause they treat their customers so well".

They can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned---and I don't even have a dog in the fight.

Epic fail on Mueller's part. I'll never consider buying one of their scopes from now on.
 
HTM, I never asked them for the price of their at cost scopes. I was insulted that they wanted me to buy something after I felt they did not stand behind their warranty. I just asked that they please ship my scope back.

For everyone on here I will post pics of the scope once it returns.
 
Nope, but I worked in Graphic Arts and Printing for 3 decades and bro, I'm just calling it the way I see it.
That is your proof??? You speculate that they just happened to find a picture in print that perfectly typifies how a scope would be damaged by the mount in question?

And you guys actually buy this nonsense with absolutely no factual evidence whatsoever??? Wow, and folks think "I" just fell off the turnip truck. :rolleyes:
 
For the record, Leupold will replace the whole scope tube on any of their scopes for $75 ... same internals of course.

CraigC said:
And you guys actually buy this nonsense with absolutely no factual evidence whatsoever??? Wow, and folks think "I" just fell off the turnip truck.

What evidence do you have other than an out-of-focus photo with crappy lighting submitted by one of the parties involved under odd circumstances. Would this photo be enough for a conviction in a court of law? Not even close!!!

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top